[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 69743]]


                 INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2007 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 
                applicable Executive Orders, 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 69744]]



                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 the development of 
                regulations, including in OMB's review of new and 
                existing regulations.

                The Administration's e-rulemaking initiative is 
                designed to improve the public's ability to get 
                involved in the rulemaking process. Visitors to the 
                website, http://www.regulations.gov, can view and 
                comment electronically on regulations proposed by 
                Federal departments and agencies. Starting with this 
                edition, the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda are 
                available electronically in searchable database format 
                at http://reginfo.gov. Additionally, beginning in early 
                2008, prior editions of the Regulatory Plan and Unified 
                Agenda will also be made available in searchable format 
                at http://reginfo.gov.

                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. Many of the nominations involved rules and 
                guidance documents that were recently issued or already 
                under review by the agencies, or involved independent 
                agency rules or guidance documents. OMB determined that 
                the remaining 122 rules and 34 guidance documents were 
                not under active review, and referred them to the 
                agencies for their evaluation as possible reforms. 
                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

[[Page 69745]]

                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. With the implementation of 
                these guidelines, agencies are now 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.

                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 government-
                wide 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.

                Recognizing the importance of agency interpretations of 
                existing regulations, OIRA recently changed its 
                policies concerning the development and review of 
                agency ``guidance documents.'' On January 18, 2007, the 
                President issued Executive Order 13422, ``Amendment to 
                Executive Order 12866 for Regulatory Planning and 
                Review.'' On that same day, OMB issued its Bulletin on 
                Agency Good Guidance Practices. The primary focus of 
                the Executive Order and the Good Guidance Bulletin is 
                to increase the quality, transparency, and 
                accountability of guidance documents.

                The Good Guidance Bulletin, which OMB issued after 
                seeking public comment on a proposed version, 
                established policies and procedures for agencies to 
                apply in their development and issuance of 
                ``significant'' and ``economically significant'' 
                guidance documents. This Bulletin will ensure that 
                guidance documents are of high quality, developed with 
                appropriate agency review and public participation, and 
                readily accessible by the public.

                The principal change to E.O. 12866 is a new process 
                that will provide an opportunity for interagency 
                coordination and review of significant guidance 
                documents prior to their issuance. E.O. 12866 was 
                amended in several other ways. For example, to ensure 
                appropriate accountability, the E.O. modifies the 
                procedures for an agency's adoption of its annual 
                Regulatory Plan and requires that an agency's 
                Regulatory Policy Officer be a Presidential appointee. 
                The E.O. also updates the Principles of Regulation in 
                E.O. 12866 to reflect the guidance-coordination 
                provisions in pre-existing OMB guidance.

                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.

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

                \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 69746]]



                Further, in 2007 OMB and the Office of Science and 
                Technology Policy (OSTP) issued an updated memorandum 
                outlining principles for conducting analyses of health, 
                safety, and environmental risk. The memorandum 
                reaffirms risk analysis principles previously released 
                by OMB in 1995 and reinforces them with more recent 
                guidance from the scientific community, Congress, and 
                the Executive Branch. The 2007 Regulatory Plan 
                continues OIRA's effort to ensure coordination across 
                Federal agencies in pursuing analytically sound 
                regulatory policies.

                The Administration's 2007 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 
                regulatory agenda. Accordingly, the 2007 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 69747]]


                                                                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                National Organic Program: Add Standards for the Organic Certification of Wild Captured Aquatic           0581-AB97       Prerule Stage
                 Animals (TM-01-08)
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                Mandatory Reporting for Dairy Programs (DA-06-07)                                                           0581-AC66 Final Rule Stage
4                Livestock Mandatory Reporting: Revise Reporting Regulation for Swine, Cattle, Lamb, and Boxed Beef          0581-AC67 Final Rule Stage
                 (LS-07-01)
5                Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals                                                                0579-AC37    Prerule Stage
6                Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds                                                         0579-AC02    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
7                Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not                  0579-AC03    Proposed Rule
                 Authorized for Importation Pending Risk Assessment                                                                               Stage
8                Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering                      0579-AC31    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
9                Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs                           0584-AD59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
10               Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity                               0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
11               FSP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002      0584-AD30    Final Rule Stage
12               Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171                                             0584-AD31    Final Rule Stage
13               Special Nutrition Programs: Fluid Milk Substitutions                                                     0584-AD58    Final Rule Stage
14               Direct Certification of Children in Food Stamp Households and Certification of Homeless, Migrant,        0584-AD60    Final Rule Stage
                 and Runaway Children for Free Meals in the NSLP, SBP, and SMP
15               Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): WIC Vendor Cost           0584-AD71    Final Rule Stage
                 Containment
16               Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC      0584-AD77    Final Rule Stage
                 Food Packages
17               Egg Products Inspection Regulations                                                                         0583-AC58    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
18               Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry                0583-AD28       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
19               Public Health-Based Poultry Slaughter Inspection                                                         0583-AD32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
20               Performance Standards for the Production of Processed Meat and Poultry Products; Control of                 0583-AC46 Final Rule Stage
                 Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Meat and Poultry Products
21               Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products            0583-AC60 Final Rule Stage
22               Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees During Meat or Poultry Product Recalls                        0583-AD10    Final Rule Stage
23               Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Procedures                                                 0596-AC49    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
24               Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management: Idaho                                   0596-AC62    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
25               Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management: Colorado                                0596-AC74    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
26               Planning Subpart A - National Forest System Land Management Planning                                        0596-AC70 Final Rule Stage
27               Delivery Enhancement for Guaranteed Loans                                                                0570-AA65    Final Rule Stage
28               Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees                                                            0572-AC06 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29               Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens             0648-AV48       Proposed Rule
                 Fishery Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006                                                                                 Stage
30               Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU Fishing or Bycatch of Protected        0648-AV51       Proposed Rule
                 Living Marine Resources                                                                                                          Stage

[[Page 69748]]

 
31               Guidance for Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) To End Overfishing             0648-AV60       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
32               Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction                                                                        0648-AS36    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33               Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended                                                    1840-AC93    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34               Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Electric and Gas Ranges and Ovens and Microwave            1904-AB49       Prerule Stage
                 Ovens, Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Commercial Clothes Washers
35               Energy Efficiency Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps      1904-AB44       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
36               Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment                                       1904-AB59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37               Control of Communicable Diseases, Interstate and Foreign Quarantine                                      0920-AA12    Final Rule Stage
38               Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics                             0910-AC52    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
39               Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics; Requirements for              0910-AF11       Proposed Rule
                 Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling                                                                                                 Stage
40               Label Requirement for Food That Has Been Refused Admission Into the United States                        0910-AF61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
41               Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements                                             0910-AF86       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
42               Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices                                                          0910-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
43               Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients and        0910-AB88    Final Rule Stage
                 Dietary Supplements
44               Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs                                                          0910-AC14 Final Rule Stage
45               Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and            0910-AC41 Final Rule Stage
                 Response Act of 2002
46               Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use                                               0910-AF14    Final Rule Stage
47               Standards for E-Prescribing Under Medicare Part D (CMS-0016-P)                                           0938-AO66       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
48               Application of Certain Appeals Provisions to the Medicare Prescription Drug Appeals Process (CMS-        0938-AO87       Proposed Rule
                 4127-P)                                                                                                                          Stage
49               Medicare Supplemental Policies (CMS-4084-P)                                                              0938-AP10       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
50               Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center             0938-AP17       Proposed Rule
                 Payment System for CY 2009 (CMS-1404-P)                                                                                          Stage

[[Page 69749]]

 
51               Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Ambulance Fee Schedule for CY         0938-AP18       Proposed Rule
                 2009 (CMS-1403-P)                                                                                                                Stage
52               End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Conditions for Coverage (CMS-3818-F)                                      0938-AG82    Final Rule Stage
53               Hospice Care Conditions of Participation (CMS-3844-F)                                                    0938-AH27    Final Rule Stage
54               Health Coverage Portability: Tolling Certain Time Periods and Interactions With Family and Medical       0938-AL88    Final Rule Stage
                 Leave Act (CMS-2158-F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55               Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-       1601-AA34       Proposed Rule
                 VISIT); Biometric Requirements for Exit at Air and Sea Ports                                                                     Stage
56               Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable to Federal Agencies for      1601-AA37    Final Rule Stage
                 Official Purposes
57               Reduction of the Number of Acceptable Documents and Other Changes to Employment Verification             1615-AA01       Proposed Rule
                 Requirements                                                                                                                     Stage
58               Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Religious Workers                                                     1615-AA16    Final Rule Stage
59               Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status              1615-AA60    Final Rule Stage
60               Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants                                                     1615-AB65    Final Rule Stage
61               Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training,          1625-AA16       Proposed Rule
                 Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 (USCG-2004-17914)                                                     Stage
62               Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels (USCG-2003-16158)                                                    1625-AA77       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
63               Navigation Equipment; SOLAS Chapter V Amendments and Electronic Chart System (USCG-2004-19588)           1625-AA91       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
64               Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System (USCG-     1625-AA99       Proposed Rule
                 2005-21869)                                                                                                                      Stage
65               Increasing Passenger Weight Standard for Passenger Vessels (USCG 2005-22732)                             1625-AB20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
66               Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements (USCG-2007-28915)       1625-AB21       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
67               Outer Continental Shelf Activities (USCG-1998-3868)                                                      1625-AA18    Final Rule Stage
68               Advance Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the United States                         1651-AA41       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
69               Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements                                             1651-AA70       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
70               Documents Required for Travelers Entering the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry From          1651-AA69    Final Rule Stage
                 Within the Western Hemisphere
71               Aircraft Repair Station Security                                                                         1652-AA38       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
72               Secure Flight Program                                                                                    1652-AA45       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
73               Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator          1652-AA53       Proposed Rule
                 Security Program                                                                                                                 Stage
74               Public Transportation--Security Plan                                                                     1652-AA56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
75               Railroads-Security Training of Employees                                                                 1652-AA57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 69750]]

 
76               Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan                                                    1652-AA58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
77               Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees                                                      1652-AA59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
78               Over-the-Road Buses--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan                                          1652-AA60       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
79               Security Threat Assessments of Certain Transportation Personnel                                          1652-AA61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
80               Rail Transportation Security                                                                             1652-AA51    Final Rule Stage
81               Public Transportation-Security Training of Employees                                                     1652-AA55    Final Rule Stage
82               Special Community Disaster Loans Program                                                                 1660-AA44       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83               HUD's Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Housing Goals (FR-4960)                                  2501-AD12       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
84               Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); To Simplify and Improve the Process of Obtaining          2502-AI61       Proposed Rule
                 Mortgages and Reduce Consumer Costs (FR-5180)                                                                                    Stage
85               Capital Fund Program (FR-4880)                                                                              2577-AC50    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86               Placement of Excess Spoil                                                                                   1029-AC04    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
87               Oil Shale Leasing and Operations                                                                         1004-AD90       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88               Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities          1190-AA44       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
89               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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90               Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Conform to the Supreme Court's Ragsdale Decision                   1215-AB35       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
91               Senior Community Service Employment Program                                                              1205-AB48       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
92               YouthBuild Program                                                                                       1205-AB49       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 69751]]

 
93               Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations                      1205-AB50       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
94               Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment         1205-AB51       Proposed Rule
                 and Wages                                                                                                                        Stage
95               Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance Accountability                                  1205-AB47    Final Rule Stage
96               Fee and Expense Disclosures to Participants in Individual Account Plans                                  1210-AB07       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
97               Amendment of Standards Applicable to General Statutory Exemption for Services                            1210-AB08       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
98               Prohibited Transaction Exemption for Provision of Investment Advice to Participants in Individual        1210-AB13       Proposed Rule
                 Account Plans                                                                                                                    Stage
99               Periodic Pension Benefit Statements                                                                      1210-AB20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
100              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
101              Section 404 Regulation--Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant Directed Individual            1210-AB10    Final Rule Stage
                 Account Plans
102              Continuous Personal Dust Monitors                                                                        1219-AB48       Prerule Stage
103              Diesel Particulate Matter: Conversion Factor From Total Carbon to Elemental Carbon                       1219-AB55       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
104              Asbestos Exposure Limit                                                                                  1219-AB24    Final Rule Stage
105              Sealing of Abandoned Areas                                                                               1219-AB52    Final Rule Stage
106              Mine Rescue Teams                                                                                        1219-AB53    Final Rule Stage
107              Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica                                                              1218-AB70       Prerule Stage
108              Cranes and Derricks                                                                                         1218-AC01    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
109              Hazard Communication                                                                                        1218-AC20    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110              Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel                                                  2105-AC97 Final Rule Stage
111              Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic Control      2120-AI92       Proposed Rule
                 Service                                                                                                                          Stage
112              Pilot Age Limit                                                                                          2120-AJ01       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
113              Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage)                                                       2120-AI05    Final Rule Stage
114              Transport Airplane Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction                                                      2120-AI23    Final Rule Stage
115              National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners                                                         2126-AA97       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
116              Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards                            2126-AB02       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
117              Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver's License                            2126-AA10    Final Rule Stage
118              New Entrant Safety Assurance Process                                                                     2126-AA59    Final Rule Stage
119              Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal      2126-AA86    Final Rule Stage
                 Equipment
120              Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance                                            2126-AA89    Final Rule Stage
121              Roof Crush Resistance                                                                                    2127-AG51       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
122              Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 2012 and Beyond                        2127-AK08       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
123              Reduced Stopping Distance Requirements for Truck Tractors                                                2127-AJ37    Final Rule Stage
124              Regulatory Relief for Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System Implementation                    2130-AB84       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 69752]]

 
125              Major Capital Investment Projects--New/Small Starts                                                      2132-AA81       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
126              Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management                                                       2137-AE15       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
127              Hazardous Materials: Enhancing Rail Transportation Safety and Security for Hazardous Materials           2137-AE02    Final Rule Stage
                 Shipments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128              Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II)                                                 1557-AC91 Final Rule Stage
129              Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II)                                              1550-AB56    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead                                            2060-AN83       Prerule Stage
131              Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP); Implementing the Screening and Testing Phase               2070-AD61       Prerule Stage
132              Nanoscale Materials Under TSCA                                                                           2070-AJ30       Prerule Stage
133              Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs                          2060-AN00       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
134              Revisions to the Definition of Potential to Emit (PTE)                                                   2060-AN65       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
135              Risk and Technology Review Phase II Group 2                                                              2060-AN85       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
136              Rulemaking To Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles                                       2060-AO56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
137              Test Rule; Testing of Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals                                     2070-AD16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
138              Pesticides; Data Requirements for Antimicrobials                                                         2070-AD30       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
139              Pesticides; Competency Standards for Occupational Users                                                  2070-AJ20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
140              Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions                                            2070-AJ22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
141              Pesticides; Data Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs)                                  2070-AJ27       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
142              Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule                               2050-AG16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
143              Revisions to Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standards and Amendments to Recycling                  2050-AG34       Proposed Rule
                 Requirements for Spent Petroleum Refining Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts                                              Stage
144              NPDES Vessel Vacatur                                                                                     2040-AE93       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
145              Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR):                 2060-AL75    Final Rule Stage
                 Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting
146              Control of Emissions from New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines Less Than 30 Liters per          2060-AM06    Final Rule Stage
                 Cylinder
147              Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment                                   2060-AM34    Final Rule Stage
148              Amendment of the Standards for Radioactive Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain, Nevada                      2060-AN15    Final Rule Stage
149              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone                                           2060-AN24    Final Rule Stage
150              Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Emission Increases for      2060-AN28    Final Rule Stage
                 Electric Generating Units

[[Page 69753]]

 
151              Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5                           2060-AN86    Final Rule Stage
152              Lead-Based Paint; Amendments for Renovation, Repair and Painting                                            2070-AC83 Final Rule Stage
153              Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry             2050-AE78    Final Rule Stage
                 Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas
154              Expanding the Comparable Fuels Exclusion Under RCRA                                                      2050-AG24    Final Rule Stage
155              Definition of Solid Wastes Revisions                                                                     2050-AG31    Final Rule Stage
156              NPDES Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Work             2040-AD87    Final Rule Stage
                 Treatment Plants Serving Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems Policy
157              Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Rule                                                               2040-AE80    Final Rule Stage
158              Water Transfers Rule                                                                                     2040-AE86    Final Rule Stage
159              Implementation Guidance for Mercury Water Quality Criteria                                               2040-AE87    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160              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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161              Federal Records Management                                                                               3095-AB16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162              Small Business Lending Company and Lender Oversight Regulations                                          3245-AE14       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders                                    0960-AG71       Prerule Stage
164              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P)                                          0960-AF69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
165              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss (2862P)                                             0960-AG20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
166              Additional Insured Status Requirements for Certain Alien Workers (2882P)                                 0960-AG22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
167              Amendments to the Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Council, and Decision Review Board Appeals           0960-AG52       Proposed Rule
                 Levels (3401P)                                                                                                                   Stage
168              Representation of Claimants (3396P)                                                                      0960-AG56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
169              Revised Medical Criteria for Malignant Neoplastic Diseases (3429P)                                       0960-AG57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
170              Amendments and Clarifications to the Adjudicatory Process (3431P)                                        0960-AG58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 69754]]

 
171              Requirement That Professional Representatives File Requests for Reconsideration and Administrative       0960-AG59       Proposed Rule
                 Law Judge Hearings Via the Internet (3432P)                                                                                      Stage
172              Amendments to Hearings Level Adjudication (3434P)                                                        0960-AG61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
173              Updates to Medical-Vocational Guidelines                                                                 0960-AG68       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
174              Clarify Applicability of Res Judicata                                                                    0960-AG69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
175              Eliminate Re-interviewing of Representative Payees                                                       0960-AG70       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
176              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders (804F)                                   0960-AF33    Final Rule Stage
177              Amendments to the Ticket To Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (967F)                                     0960-AF89    Final Rule Stage
178              Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information; Availability of Information and Records      0960-AG14    Final Rule Stage
                 to the Public (2562F)
179              Consultative Examination--Annual Onsite Review of Medical Examiners (3338F)                              0960-AG41    Final Rule Stage
180              Suspension of New Claims to the Federal Reviewing Official Review Level (3394F)                          0960-AG53    Final Rule Stage
181              Nonpayment of Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Probation or Parole Violators (2222F)                      0960-AG55    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                           CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182              Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture                                                          3041-AB35       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
183              Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003                                                        3084-AA94       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
184              Technical Standards for Gaming Machines and Gaming Systems                                               3141-AA29       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
185              Game Classification Standards                                                                            3141-AA31       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
186              System of Rate Regulation for Market Dominant Products                                                   3211-AA02    Final Rule Stage
187              Competitive Products                                                                                     3211-AA03    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 07-05122 Filed 12-07-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S

[[Page 69755]]




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulations cover 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:
 Legislation covering major farm, trade, conservation, rural 
            development, nutrition assistance and other programs 
            (``Farm Bill'') expires at the end of fiscal year 2007. 
            Regulations will need to be promulgated to implement any 
            new or modified programs reauthorized included in the new 
            Farm Bill that is now under development. It is anticipated 
            that a number of high priority regulations will be 
            developed during FY 2008 to implement the Farm Bill, but 
            additional details are not available for inclusion in this 
            plan.
 USDA will continue regulatory work to protect the health and 
            value of U.S. agricultural and natural resources while 
            facilitating trade flows. This includes amending 
            regulations related to the importation of fruits and 
            vegetables, nursery products, and animals and animal 
            products, and continuing work related to regulation of 
            plant and animal biotechnologies. In addition, USDA will 
            propose specific standards for the humane handling, care, 
            treatment, and transportation of birds under the Animal 
            Welfare Act.
 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. To assist small entities to 
            comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety and 
            Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with other 
            USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced small 
            business outreach program.
 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 2008, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vendor fraud.
 USDA has priority projects in the Rural Development mission 
            area to strengthen the regulations for its broadband access 
            program to better focus on areas without such access, and 
            to consolidate and streamline its regulations relating to 
            the delivery of its guaranteed loan programs.
 USDA will continue to promote economic opportunities for 
            agriculture and rural communities through its BioPreferred 
            Program (formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred 
            Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate 
            groups of biobased products to receive procurement 
            preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In 
            addition, USDA intends to publish rules establishing the 
            Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
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) and the E-Government Act, 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, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability 
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all 
USDA agencies. Supporting 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 USDA 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 emergency producer 
assistance as a result of natural disasters, to regulations protecting 
American agribusiness (a major 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 resulting in the 
modification, addition, or deletion of many programs. In 2008, USDA 
anticipates implementing a new Farm Bill through regulations on major 
programs covering domestic commodity support, crop insurance, 
conservation, export and foreign food assistance, bioenergy, rural 
development, agricultural research, and food and nutrition programs.
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,

[[Page 69756]]

along with a summary of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 
2008:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: The Food and Nutrition Service (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 
2007 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal 5, ``Improve the 
Nation's Nutrition and Health,'' and its three related objectives:
Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective 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 distributing State administrative funds to support 
program operations. To advance this objective, FNS plans to finalize 
rules implementing provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) to simplify program administration, support 
work, and improve access to benefits in the Food Stamp Program (FSP). 
The Agency will also issue rules implementing provisions of the Child 
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) to 
establish automatic eligibility for homeless children for school meals.
Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition knowledge and behavior 
through nutrition education and breastfeeding promotion, and to ensure 
that program benefits meet the appropriate nutrition standards to 
effectively improve nutrition for program participants. In support of 
this objective, FNS plans to propose regulations updating nutrition 
standards in the school meals programs, and finalize a rule revising 
requirements that allow schools to substitute nutritionally-equivalent 
non-dairy beverages for fluid milk at the request of a recipient's 
parent in addition to medical care providers. FNS will also publish an 
interim final rule making improvements in food packages in the WIC 
program to reflect current dietary guidance, based on recommendations 
made by an Institute of Medicine expert panel.
Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer Service. 
This objective 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. In 
support of this objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and 
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) to improve 
program management and prevent vendor fraud, as well as finalize rules 
in the FSP to improve the Quality Control process.
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 streamline excessively 
prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove regulations that are 
inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and critical control 
point regulations, and to ensure that it can address emerging food 
safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two agencies' 
jurisdictions over various food products.
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 also contained 
provisions addressing post-lethality contamination of RTE products with 
Listeria monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final 
rule requiring establishments to prevent Listeria monocytogenes 
contamination of RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the 
effectiveness of this interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject 
of a regulatory reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed 
its economic analysis of the interim final rule in response to this 
recommendation and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to 
reduce the information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS also 
is planning further action with respect to other elements of the 2001 
proposal, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in 
processed products.
FSIS plans to amend the poultry products inspection regulations to 
provide for a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter 
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection. 
Although this new system would be available initially only to young 
chicken slaughter, FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would 
provide the framework for action to provide public health-based 
inspection in all establishments that slaughter amenable poultry 
species. This proposed rule will be designed based on some data from 
the HACCP-based Inspection Models (HIMP) pilot and will reflect FSIS' 
and establishments' experience under HIMP, which began in 1997. The 
proposed rule will also reflect information FSIS has gathered at public 
meetings on risk-based inspection for processing and slaughter this 
past year.
In the same regulations that propose to establish a public-health based 
poultry products inspection system, FSIS intends to replace, with a 
performance standard, the requirement for ready-to-cook poultry 
products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below within certain time limits 
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 ensures 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 proposed on March 7, 2006, to amend the Federal meat and poultry 
product inspection regulations to provide that the Agency would make 
available to individual consumers lists of the retail consignees of 
meat and poultry products that a federally inspected meat or poultry 
products establishment has voluntarily recalled. FSIS believes this 
action will improve public health by making available more information 
on where recalled products were sold. With this information, consumers 
will be more likely to identify and dispose of the products or return 
them to the stores that sold them.
FSIS is collaborating with the FDA in an effort to rationalize the 
division of food protection responsibilities between the two agencies 
and eliminate

[[Page 69757]]

confusion over which agency has jurisdiction over which kinds of 
products. The agencies are taking an approach that involves considering 
how the meat or poultry ingredients contribute to the characteristics 
and basic identity of food products. Thus, FSIS plans to propose 
amending its regulations to exclude from its jurisdiction cheese and 
cheese products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; 
breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or 
poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and reaction/process 
flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad dressings prepared with 
less than 50 percent meat or poultry from the requirements. FSIS also 
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and close-faced meat 
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the requirements of the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
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 FSIS approval of 
egg-product plant drawings, specifications, and equipment before their 
use, and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of labeling for 
egg products.
Small business implications. The great majority of businesses regulated 
by FSIS are small businesses. With the possible exception of the 
planned poultry inspection system regulations, the regulations listed 
above substantially affect small businesses. FSIS recognizes the 
difficulties faced by many small and very small establishments in 
complying with necessary, science-based food-safety or other consumer 
protection requirements and in assuming the associated technical and 
financial burdens. FSIS attempts to reduce the burdens of its 
regulations on small business by providing alternative dates of 
compliance, furnishing detailed compliance guidance material, and 
conducting outreach programs to small and very small establishments.
FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical 
training, access to food safety experts, and information resources 
(such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various 
topics) in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. 
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and 
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and 
operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural 
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their 
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small 
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide 
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS 
employees.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect 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. APHIS also conducts 
programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: APHIS is continuing work that will result in a revision of 
its regulations concerning the introduction of organisms and products 
altered or produced through genetic engineering. This work consists of 
two parts. The first is to amend the existing plant-related regulations 
to reflect new consolidated authorities under the Plant Protection Act. 
The second is to begin with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to 
consider regulatory approaches for transgenic animals. These regulatory 
changes are needed to ensure that USDA regulations for plant and animal 
health keep pace with advances in technology. APHIS also plans to 
propose changes to the regulations for importing nursery stock that 
will enhance our ability to protect plant health. The Agency also plans 
to propose changes to its regulations concerning bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) to provide a more comprehensive framework for the 
importation of certain animals and products. With regard to animal 
welfare, APHIS plans to propose standards for the humane handling, 
care, treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal 
Welfare Act.
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing 
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, 
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the 
Government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains 
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and 
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS would continue work in several areas. The July 3, 2007, 
interim final rule establishing a Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting 
Program requires dairy product manufacturers to report to the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) information on price, quantity, 
and moisture content of products sold. Information must also be 
reported about the amount of dairy product stored, per statute. AMS has 
implemented a program to audit information reported to NASS. Provisions 
of the interim final rule will expire 12 months from the date of 
publication unless further regulatory action is taken; AMS intends to 
finalize the rule. Under the August 8, 2007, proposed rule to implement 
the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, AMS would collect information 
about the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and related products. AMS 
intends to finalize the rule.
By statute, country of origin labeling requirements will apply to all 
covered commodities on September 30, 2008. Covered commodities include 
beef, lamb and pork, fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural 
commodities, and peanuts. The intent of this law is to provide 
consumers with additional information on which to base their purchasing 
decisions. AMS intends to finalize rulemaking to meet the statutory 
deadline.
AMS Program Rulemaking Pages: All of AMS's rules, published in the 
Federal Register, are available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. This site also includes commenting instructions 
and addresses, links to news releases and background material, and 
comments received on various rules.
Rural Development
Mission: Rural Development's mission is to support increased economic 
opportunities and improved quality of life in rural America. This 
support is provided through loan, grant and technical assistance for 
rural housing,

[[Page 69758]]

community facilities, business and industry, and electric and 
telecommunication facilities.
Priorities: Current priorities include strengthening the regulations 
for the rural broadband access program to address infrastructure and 
services deployment issues. Another priority is to consolidate and 
streamline regulations relating to enhancing delivery of loan 
guarantees through a unified regulation on common provisions.
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 
international forest and range conservation.
Priorities: The Forest Service's priorities for fall 2007 are to 
publish a proposed regulation to a proposed rule for National Forest 
System land management planning, and then adopting a final rule at 36 
CFR 219, subpart A. This rulemaking is the result of a U.S. district 
court order dated March 30, 2007, which enjoined the United States 
Department of Agriculture from implementation and utilization of the 
land management planning rule published in 2005 (70 FR1023) until it 
complies with the court's order regarding the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-
1144 (N. D. Cal.)).
On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) to provide for the conservation 
and management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried 
roadless areas within the National Forest System under the principles 
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. On July 14, 2003, the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the 2001 roadless 
rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be permanently enjoined. 
The State of Idaho and the State of Colorado have petitioned the 
Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. -553(e) and 7 C.F.R. -1.28 for state-
specific rules to replace this national rule in their respective 
States.
The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA 
procedures, required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 
codified at 40 CFR 1507.3, from the internal Forest Service 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 36 CFR part 220. New procedures would 
be added and existing procedures would be revised where clarity is 
needed to incorporate CEQ guidance and align agency NEPA procedures 
with agency decision processes.
Office of the Chief Economist
Mission: The mission of the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) is to 
advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic implications of 
USDA policies, programs, and proposed legislation; to ensure the public 
has consistent, objective, and reliable agricultural forecasts; and to 
promote effective and efficient rules governing USDA programs.
Priorities: The regulatory priority for OCE is to continue implementing 
the BioPreferred Program (formerly the Federal Biobased Product 
Preferred Procurement Program) authorized under section 9002 of the 
2002 Farm Bill (Public Law 107-171). Included in this priority are 
proposed and final regulations designating items for preferred Federal 
procurement. These regulations will assist in the expansion of market 
opportunities for manufacturers of biobased products, resulting in 
economic opportunities for American agricultural producers and rural 
communities. These efforts support USDA's strategic goal ``To enhance 
the competitiveness and sustainability of rural and farm economies.'' 
In addition, OCE will look to begin implementation of the BioPreferred 
labeling program. Once implemented, this program will allow biobased 
manufacturers to receive a label to be used in the commercial market to 
distinguish their products as biobased.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per the amendments to E.O. 12866, we are providing an aggregate 
estimate of costs and benefits of final regulations included in the 
Regulatory Plan that will be made effective in calendar year 2008. 
However, any aggregate estimate of total costs and benefits must be 
highly qualified. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing 
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type 
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. In addition, aggregation 
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as 
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious 
foods and higher levels of food safety and increased quality of life 
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and 
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot 
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. With 
these caveats noted, USDA anticipates aggregate annual monetized 
benefits to range from $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion. Aggregate annual 
monetized costs are anticipated to be approximately $0.5 billion.
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ADD STANDARDS FOR THE ORGANIC 
CERTIFICATION OF WILD CAPTURED AQUATIC ANIMALS (TM-01-08)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 6501 through 6522


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is revising regulations 
pertaining to labeling of agricultural products as organically produced 
and handled (7 CFR part 205). The term ``aquatic animal'' will be 
incorporated in the definition of livestock to establish production and 
handling standards for operations that capture aquatic animals from the 
wild. Production standards for operations producing aquatic animals 
will incorporate requirements for livestock origin, feed ration, health 
care, living conditions, and recordkeeping. Handling standards for such 
operations will address prevention of commingling of organically 
produced commodities and prevention of contact between organically 
produced and prohibited substances.


Statement of Need:


This amendment to the National Organic Program is intended to

[[Page 69759]]

facilitate interstate commerce and marketing of fresh and processed 
aquatic animals that are organically produced and to assure consumers 
that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. Also, this 
amendment will establish national standards for the production and 
handling of organically produced aquatic animals and products, 
including a national list of substances approved and prohibited for use 
in organic production and handling.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This amendment is proposed under the Organic Foods Production Act of 
1990 (OFPA). OFPA includes fish for food in its definition of 
livestock. Additionally, on April 12, 2003, Congress amended OFPA 
section 2107 (7 U.S.C. 6506) to authorize certification of wild 
seafood.


Alternatives:


AMS is fulfilling a congressional mandate to proceed with rulemaking 
for the establishment of national standards for the organic production 
and handling of aquatic animals.


Other options are to do nothing or to propose regulations prohibiting 
the labeling of aquatic animals as organically produced. Neither 
alternative is viable inasmuch as Congress has amended OFPA to 
authorize certification of wild seafood.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Potential benefits to consumers include more information on organic 
aquatic animals and protection from false and misleading organic 
claims. This proposal will address the problem of existing certifying 
agents using different standards. This proposal will also resolve the 
issue of whether aquatic animals can be labeled as organically 
produced.


The costs of this proposed regulation are the direct costs to comply 
with the specific standards. USDA-accredited certifying agents 
potentially will incur additional costs of accreditation should they 
opt to certify producers and handlers of aquatic animals. New 
applicants for accreditation to certify producers and handlers of 
aquatic animals under the National Organic Program will incur fees for 
accreditation. Producers and handlers of organically produced and 
handled aquatic animals will incur costs for certification levied by 
USDA-accredited certifying agents. USDA would not levy any fees on the 
certified operations. Producers and handlers will face numerous 
provisions that will regulate their production and handling methods. 
Retailers would not be directly regulated but would be subject to the 
same requirements for organic animals and products as they are 
currently for other foods under the NOP. AMS believes this action will 
have a minimal impact on retailers. Certified handlers will have to 
comply with requirements regarding the approved use of labels. The 
USDA, States operating State programs, and certifying agents will incur 
costs for enforcement of these new organic standards. Certifying 
agents, producers, and handlers would incur costs for reporting and 
recordkeeping. Certifying agents will be required to file reports and 
documents with the USDA and to maintain records regarding their 
accreditation and the certification of their clients. Certified 
operations will be required to develop and annually update an organic 
system plan and to maintain records regarding their certification and 
the administration of their operation.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


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-AB97
_______________________________________________________________________



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, 2008.


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 implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling 
(COOL) for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and 
shellfish until September 30, 2006. The FY 2006 Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill further delayed the implementation date for other 
covered commodities until September 30, 2008.


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

[[Page 69760]]

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. The FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill 
further delayed the implementation date for the other covered 
commodities until September 30, 2008.


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 Costs 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
Comment Period Extended         11/27/06                    71 FR 68431
Comment Period End              02/26/07
Comment Period Extended         06/20/07                    72 FR 33851
Comment Period End              08/20/07
Final Action                    09/00/08

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 became effective on April 4, 2005. A final regulatory 
action for all covered commodities will be issued by September 30, 
2008.


Agency Contact:
Martin O'Connor
Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
14th & Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-6456
Phone: 202 720-4486
Fax: 202 690-4119
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC26
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--AMS



3. MANDATORY REPORTING FOR DAIRY PROGRAMS (DA-06-07)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 106-532


CFR Citation:


7 USC 1621 through 1677


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Agricultural Marketing Service is proposing to establish a Dairy 
Product Mandatory Reporting Program. The program would: (1) Require 
persons engaged in manufacturing dairy products to provide the 
Department of Agriculture certain information including price, 
quantity, and moisture content of dairy products sold by the 
manufacturer and (2) require manufacturers and other persons storing 
dairy products to report to USDA information on the quantity of dairy 
products stored.


Statement of Need:


The Department and industry must be confident in the accuracy of dairy 
product prices and inventories that are reported to the Department. 
This is especially so, given that the information collected on 
manufactured dairy products is used by the Secretary to establish 
minimum prices for Class III and Class IV milk under Federal milk 
marketing orders. As mandated by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 
2000 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, this rule 
establishes the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program (DMRP). 
Implementation of this program will result in timely, accurate, and 
reliable market information to facilitate more informed marketing 
decisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This program is mandated by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as 
amended by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000 and the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


The Agricultural Marketing Service is fulfilling a congressional 
mandate to proceed with rulemaking to establish the DMRP and to 
implement a plan to verify the price information submitted by various 
dairy product manufacturing plants. Several alternatives to this 
program were initially identified, but were not considered due to the 
specific language contained in the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 
2000. These alternatives included: (1) the use of non-mandatory 
surveys, (2) the use of alternative data sources such as the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange, and (3) collecting data less frequently.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Impact on Dairy Farmers


It is in the industry's best interest that NASS-reported prices be as 
accurate as possible for calculating milk prices. Although dairy 
farmers under the Federal milk marketing order program account for 61 
percent (approximately 103 billion pounds of milk in 2004) of U.S. milk 
production, all U.S. dairy

[[Page 69761]]

farmers are affected to some degree by the Federal order pricing.


Imprecise price information can be costly. For example, a 1 cent per 
pound error in the May 2005 cheese price would cause a 9.65 cent per 
hundredweight error in the Class III price and a 3.76 cent per 
hundredweight error in the all market uniform or blend price (price 
paid to dairy farmers). Multiplying the price error (3.76 cents) times 
the quantity of milk marketed in Federal milk marketing order system 
indicates that either producers would have received $4 million less for 
their milk in the month of May 2005, than they did, or that 
manufacturers would have paid $4 million more for milk in May 2005, 
than they did.


Impact on Dairy Manufacturers


The cost to the dairy manufacturers and cold storage facilities of 
completing the survey is assumed to be comparable to the hourly rate of 
those collecting the data. Manufacturers must submit products prices 52 
times a year and it is estimated that each report takes 20 minutes to 
complete. Cold storage facilities must report their inventories 12 
times a year and it is estimated that each report takes 30 minutes to 
complete. The salary for employees completing the survey is estimated 
at $22 per hour. Therefore, the annual cost to a manufacturer reporting 
product prices is estimated at $381.26 and the annual cost to cold 
storage facilities completing reports is $132.


Most manufacturers subject to reporting under the Dairy Product 
Mandatory Reporting Program already report this information to NASS. 
Therefore, the incremental cost of implementing the program will be for 
those manufacturers who do not already report to NASS.


When the mandatory reporting program is implemented an additional 25 
manufacturing plants will be required to submit product price reports. 
Therefore, the incremental cost to the industry of implementing the 
mandatory pricing program is estimated to be $9,531.50. It is estimated 
that 110 cold storage facilities meet the mandatory reporting 
requirements. Thus, the annual total incremental cost to cold storage 
facilities is estimated to be $14,520. The total incremental cost borne 
by dairy manufacturers and warehouses is approximately $24,000. With 
respect to total annual costs, the costs to cold storage facilities 
completing reports is $132 per facility for a total annual cost of 
$14,520. The cost to manufacturers reporting product prices is 
estimated at $381.26 per plant for a total annual cost of $37,363. 
Thus, the total annual cost for submitting information under the 
mandatory program is $51,883.48.


Impact on Government Costs


Background: In 2005, NASS collected prices information from 98 plants 
that were submitted on 71 reports from 60 unique locations. Reports 
generally are filed via fax with the appropriate State NASS office. 
Some reports are sent via fax directly to the NASS headquarters office 
in Washington, DC. Some reports are filed via NASS' electronic data 
reporting (EDR) system. In all cases, the reports are keyed into NASS' 
Dairy Product Prices (DPP) system (a SAS) database. The headquarters 
NASS staffer who is responsible for the published report, queries the 
DPP to generate various reports. Among these reports is the data 
listing which has individual report information. For the AMS prices 
verification program, NASS will generate a report from the data listing 
matching AMS' requirements.


Assumptions for Incremental Cost Estimates: As stated in the 
preliminary cost-benefit analysis, for the first year of all of the 60 
reporting entities will be visited and the information contained in 
each of the 71 reports will be verified for a specific review period. 
Sales transaction records for all of the 98 plants will be analyzed. 
The review period will be four weeks in the same month, with the 
selected month varying according to the Verification Plan. It will take 
4 hours to analyze the sales transactions for one week; two full days 
per plant. The hourly salary for the verifier is $40 with a 30-percent 
benefits rate. The travel cost per location is $100; per diem cost is 
$75. In the subsequent years, those reporting locations that account 
for top 80 percent of the reported volume will be visited each year, as 
well as one-third of the reporting locations that account for the 
remaining 20 percent of reported volume. Reporting locations in the 
latter category will be visited at least once every three years. The 
other assumptions concerning review period, length of time to analyze 
records, and cost figures apply the same as for the first year.


First Year Incremental Cost Estimate: $102,236


Travel -- $6,000 (60 locations X $100)


Per Diem -- $14,700 (98 plants X 2 days X $75/day)


Salary/Benefits -- $81,536 (98 plants X 16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)


Second & Subsequent Years Incremental Cost Estimate: $69,594


Travel -- $3,800 (38 locations X $100)


Per Diem -- $10,050 (67 plants X 16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)


Salary/Benefits -- $55,744 (67 plants X16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)


Benefits. The major benefit of mandatory price reporting is to assure 
accurate price reporting by dairy manufacturers. The total incremental 
cost of implementing the program is estimated to be $126,287.50 in the 
first year and $93,645.50 in subsequent years. The incremental benefit 
of the program cannot be quantified; therefore, net benefits cannot be 
quantified.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              07/03/07                    72 FR 36341
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   08/02/07
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John Mengel
Chief Economist
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-4664
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC66
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--AMS



4. LIVESTOCK MANDATORY REPORTING: REVISE REPORTING REGULATION FOR 
SWINE, CATTLE, LAMB, AND BOXED BEEF (LS-07-01)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 1621


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 59

[[Page 69762]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule is necessary to re-establish the regulatory authority for the 
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Program's continued operation and to 
implement the changes to the swine reporting provision made to the Act, 
as well as other changes to enhance the program's overall operation and 
efficiency based on AMS' experience in the administration of the 
program over the last 5 years.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to re-establish the regulatory authority 
for the program's continued operation and incorporate the swine 
reporting changes contained within the Reauthorization Act as well as 
make other changes to enhance the program's overall effectiveness and 
efficiency based on AMS' experience in the administration of the 
program over the last 6-years.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On April 2, 2001, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) implemented 
the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) program as required by the 
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 (1999 Act). The statutory 
authority for the program lapsed on September 30, 2005. In October 
2006, legislation was enacted to reauthorize the 1999 Act until 
September 30, 2010, and to amend the swine reporting requirements of 
the 1999 Act (Pub. Law 109-296) (Reauthorization Act.)


Alternatives:


AMS is fulfilling a Congressional mandate to proceed with rulemaking to 
reestablish and revise the mandatory reporting regulation for swine, 
cattle, lamb, and boxed beef.


Other options are to do nothing or to propose regulations for voluntary 
reporting of market information for swine, cattle, lamb, and boxed 
beef. Neither alternative is viable given that the Livestock Mandatory 
Reporting Act was reauthorized to require mandatory reporting of market 
information by certain livestock processing plants and directs the USDA 
to promulgate regulations to implement the law.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule facilitates open, transparent price discovery and 
provides all market participants, both large and small, with comparable 
levels of market information. The proposed rule is expected to reduce 
the time and resources that market participants would otherwise expend 
to assess current market conditions and reduce risk and uncertainty. 
This proposed rule is strictly an informational measure and does not 
impose any restrictions on the form, timing, or location of procurement 
and sales arrangements in which subject packers and importers may 
engage. Therefore, costs of the proposed rule are simply the costs 
associated with the system development and maintenance, data 
submission, and recordkeeping activities of the packers and importers 
required to report information under this proposed rule, plus costs to 
the Federal Government for operation of the program. However, most of 
the entities that would be required to report under this proposed rule 
already reported information prior to expiration of the 1999 Act on 
September 30, 2005, and have since continued to do so voluntarily. As a 
result, incremental costs for implementation of this proposed rule are 
negligible relative to total costs associated with the program.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/08/07                    72 FR 44672
NPRM Comment Period End         09/07/07
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Warren Preston
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202-720-6231
Fax: 202 690-3732
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC67
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




5. REGULATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 8301 to 8317


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


APHIS is considering the need to regulate the movement (which includes 
importation, containment, and field release) of genetically engineered 
animals to ensure that the genetically engineered traits do not present 
a health risk to livestock. Biotechnology research and development have 
resulted in genetically engineered animals and animal products that are 
ready for commercialization. Although these applications may provide 
significant agricultural, human/animal health, and societal benefits, 
there are also potential risks, concerns, and environmental impacts 
associated with the technology that may require Federal oversight.


Statement of Need:


APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United 
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically 
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 7 CFR 
part 340, ``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced 
Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is 
Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.'' In consultation with other Federal 
agencies, APHIS is beginning to develop a regulatory framework for 
transgenic animals and other organisms to address animal health issues 
such as pest and disease risks to livestock. Biotechnology research and 
development have resulted in genetically-engineered (GE) animals and 
animal products that are ready for commercialization. Although these 
applications may provide significant agricultural, human/animal health 
and societal benefits, there are also

[[Page 69763]]

potential risks, concerns, and environmental impacts associated with 
the technology that requires Federal oversight.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The primary authority is provided by the Animal Health Protection Act, 
which 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. Such articles may 
include genetically engineered products.


Alternatives:


To be identified.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


Animals and other organisms may be genetically engineered to exhibit a 
trait that could present an animal health risk. The purpose of this 
rulemaking is to address animal health risks, such as disease and pest 
risks to livestock, that may be presented by these organisms.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           01/00/08
ANPRM Comment Period End        03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
John Turner
Director, Policy Coordination Division, BRS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 146
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5720
RIN: 0579-AC37
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




6. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 2131 to 2159


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 1 to 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.


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.


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 that are not bred for use in research.


Alternatives:


To be identified.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Darrel Styles
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0658
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS



7. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF 
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK 
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 319


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing 
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. 
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation 
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We

[[Page 69764]]

would allow foreign governments to request that a pest risk assessment 
be conducted for a taxon whose importation is not authorized pending 
risk evaluation. After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would 
conduct rulemaking to remove the taxon from the proposed category if 
determined appropriate by the risk assessment. We are also proposing to 
expand the scope of the plants regulated in the plants for planting 
regulations to include non-vascular plants. These changes would allow 
us to react more quickly to evidence that a taxon of plants for 
planting may pose a pest risk while ensuring that our actions are based 
on scientific evidence.


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 one alternative to the approach we are 
considering. We could 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 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 Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.


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

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis & Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 141
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS



8. INTRODUCTION OF ORGANISMS AND PRODUCTS ALTERED OR PRODUCED THROUGH 
GENETIC ENGINEERING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 340


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


APHIS is considering changes to its regulations regarding the 
importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of 
genetically engineered organisms. We are seeking public comment on the 
regulatory alternatives we have identified through scoping and on the 
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) we have prepared relative 
to those alternatives. This notice reflects the Agency's current 
thinking on policy and program design issues affecting our 
biotechnology programs. The DEIS evaluates the alternatives we have 
identified so far in terms of their potential effects on the human 
environment compared to our current regulatory program.


Statement of Need:


APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United 
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically 
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 7 CFR 
part 340, ``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced 
Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is 
Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.'' APHIS is evaluating its regulatory 
program to determine if there is a need to revise its regulations in 
light of our current knowledge and experience and advances in science 
and technology.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The primary authority is provided by the Plant Protection Act, which 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the 
importation, entry, and movement in interstate commerce any plant, 
plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, or other 
article if necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination 
within the United States of any plant pest or noxious weed. Such 
articles may include genetically engineered products.


Alternatives:


A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) prepared for this action 
evaluates all of the regulatory alternatives under consideration by the 
Agency. Some key alternatives considered include whether APHIS should 
broaden the scope of the regulations to reflect its authority over 
noxious weeds and biological control organisms; whether and how to 
revise

[[Page 69765]]

the regulations to make the Agency's use of risk-based categories--
where genetically engineered organisms are classified according to risk 
and familiarity so that oversight and confinement vary by category--
more refined, more explicit and more transparent to the industry and 
the public and what criteria should be used to establish risk-based 
categories; how to manage genetically engineered organisms that present 
only minor unresolved risks that can be mitigated effectively, and what 
factors should be considered in establishing appropriate mitigations; 
whether new or additional regulatory mechanisms are needed to ensure 
that genetically engineered organisms producing pharmaceutical or 
industrial compounds are subject to requirements and oversight 
commensurate with the potential risks; for organisms that might be 
commercialized but that do not meet the criteria for deregulation, 
whether a new type of permitting system would be more appropriate in 
terms of efficiency and effectiveness than the current system; whether 
APHIS should establish a new regulatory approach to address incidents 
of low-level presence of genetically engineered plant material; whether 
APHIS should establish a new regulatory mechanism to allow for imports 
of commodities for nonpropagative use, that is, for food, feed, or 
processing, in cases where these commodities might not have been 
deregulated in the United States; and whether to expand its current 
exemption from interstate movement restrictions additional well-
studied, low-risk, genetically engineered research organisms.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


While APHIS has always used a risk-based approach in regulating 
genetically engineered organisms, there is a trend toward more highly 
varied organisms. For example, genetic engineering technology has 
advanced to the point where organisms can be developed that produce 
novel proteins and other substances with biological activity or 
industrial utility. We have initiated this rulemaking because APHIS 
recognizes that the regulatory process may need greater flexibility and 
rigor to more appropriately regulate the increasing variety of 
organisms.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent to 
    Prepare an 
    Environmental Impact 
    Statement                   01/23/04                     69 FR 3271
Comment Period End              03/23/04
Notice of Availability of 
    Draft Environmental 
    Impact Statement            07/17/07                    72 FR 39021
Comment Period End              09/11/07
NPRM                            05/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Michael Wach
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 147
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-0485
RIN: 0579-AC31
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




9. NUTRITION STANDARDS IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH AND SCHOOL 
BREAKFAST PROGRAMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 108-265, sec 103


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Public Law 108-265 requires the Secretary to issue regulations that 
reflect specific recommendations for increased consumption of foods and 
food ingredients in school nutrition programs based on the most recent 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.


The current regulations require that reimbursable meals offered by 
schools meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans. This proposed rule would revise the regulations on meal 
patterns and nutrition standards to ensure that school meals reflect 
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (04-017)


Statement of Need:


This action is needed to update the NSLP and SBP requirements to 
promote the consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-
fat and fat-free milk consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans. This action is also needed to update the nutrient and 
calorie requirements to reflect the Dietary Reference Intakes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law 
108-265.


Alternatives:


FNS considered several options to implement the 2005 Dietary Guidelines 
in the school meal programs in the most effective and least burdensome 
manner. Several alternatives were discussed to update the age/grade 
groups, calorie requirements, and menu planning approaches.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This proposed rule would allow USDA's school meal programs to deliver 
wholesome and nutrient-dense meals that reflect the latest nutrition 
science, as stated in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the 
Dietary Reference Intakes. Implementation of this proposal would 
support the Federal government's efforts to reduce the proportion of 
children and adolescents who are overweight or obese to five percent by 
the year 2010, which is one of the objectives in the report ``Healthy 
People 2010''. This proposed rule would not result in an increase in 
Federal spending.


Risks:


Failure to update the NSLP and SBP regulations as proposed by this 
action would jeopardize the ability of these nutrition programs to 
safeguard the health and well-being of children, as intended by the 
National School Lunch Act.

[[Page 69766]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/08
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD59
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




10. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM 
INTEGRITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 226


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


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


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


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


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


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


Risks:


Operating under interim rules puts State agencies and institutions at 
risk of implementing Program provisions subject to change in a final 
rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/12/00                    65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End         12/11/00
Interim Final Rule              09/01/04                    69 FR 53502
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/01/04
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          09/01/05
Final Action                    03/00/08

[[Page 69767]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



11. 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 Costs 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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/16/04                    69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End         06/15/04
Final Action                    04/00/08
Final Action Effective          08/00/08

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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



12. 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 rule finalizes the interim rule ``Non-Discretionary Quality 
Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (published 
October 16, 2003 at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule ``Discretionary 
Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' 
(published September 23, 2005 at 70 FR 55776).


The following quality control (QC) provisions required by sections 4118 
and 4119 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title 
IV of Public Law 107-171) and contained in the interim rule are 
implemented by this final rule:


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

[[Page 69768]]

8) Corrective action plans.


The following provisions required by sections 4118 and 4119 and 
additional policy and technical changes, and contained in the proposed 
rule, are implemented by this final rule:


Legislative changes based on or required by sections 4118 and 4119:


1) Eliminate enhanced funding;


2) Establish timeframes for completing individual quality control 
reviews; and


3) Establish procedures for adjusting liability determinations 
following appeal decisions.


Policy and technical changes:


1) Require State agency QC reviewers to attempt to complete review when 
a household refuses to cooperate;


2) Mandate FNS validation of negative sample for purposes of high 
performance bonuses;


3) Revise procedures for conducting negative case reviews;


4) Revise time frames for household penalties for refusal to cooperate 
with State and Federal QC reviews;


5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of demonstration and SSA processed 
cases;


6) Eliminate requirement to report variances resulting from Federal 
information exchange systems (FIX) errors;


7) Eliminate references to integrated QC; and


8) Update definitions section to remove out-dated definitions. (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 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 the time frames for completing quality 
control reviews, the arbitration process, and determining the final 
error rates; the threshold for potential sanctions and the time period 
for the sanctions; the calculation for State error rates; the formula 
for determining liability amounts; the sanction notification; method of 
payment for liabilities; corrective action planning, and the 
elimination of enhanced funding. These provisions were effective for 
the fiscal year 2003 quality control review period and must have been 
implemented by FNS and State agencies during fiscal year 2003. This 
rule also deals in part with discretionary changes to the quality 
control system resulting from Public Law 107-171. 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 Costs 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
NPRM                            02/23/05                    70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End         12/22/05
Final Action                    06/00/08

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
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



13. 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 
who cannot consume milk due to medical reasons. 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

[[Page 69769]]

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 worked with other Federal agencies to develop criteria for 
nutritionally equivalent substitutes for fluid milk as well as 
conducting research. USDA issued a proposed rule on November 9, 2006, 
and received 107 public comments.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Schools may incur additional costs in obtaining and offering substitute 
beverages. However, children who cannot consume milk will now have a 
beverage nutritionally equivalent to milk.


Risks:


USDA must be diligent in making any determinations of nutritional 
equivalency to milk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/09/06                    71 FR 65753
NPRM Comment Period End         01/08/07
Final Action                    01/00/08

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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD58
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLDS AND 
CERTIFICATION OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE MEALS 
IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 108-265, sec 104


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 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 section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory 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 Costs 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              12/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          12/00/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

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
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



15. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND 
CHILDREN (WIC): WIC VENDOR COST CONTAINMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1786


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 246


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 30, 2006.

[[Page 69770]]

Abstract:


This 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 (Pub. 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 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(e)(10) 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 Costs 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              11/29/05                    70 FR 71708
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/29/06
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   12/29/05
Final Action                    02/00/08
Final Action Effective          03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal

[[Page 69771]]

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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD71
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



16. 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 246


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 2006.


CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265) requires 
issuance of final rule within 18 months of release of IOM Report.


Abstract:


This interim final rule implements the first comprehensive revisions to 
the WIC food packages since 1980. These revised food packages were 
developed to better reflect current nutrition science and dietary 
recommendations than do current food packages, within the parameters of 
current program costs. This interim final rule revises regulations 
governing the WIC food packages to align the WIC food packages with the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) (1) and current infant feeding 
practice guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics, better 
promote and support the establishment of successful long-term 
breastfeeding, provide WIC participants with a wider variety of food, 
and provide WIC State agencies with greater flexibility in prescribing 
food packages to accommodate participants with cultural food 
preferences. (05-006)


Statement of Need:


As the population served by WIC has grown and become more diverse over 
the last 20 years, the nutritional risks faced by participants have 
changed, and though nutrition science has advanced, the WIC 
supplemental food packages have remained largely unchanged. A rule is 
needed to implement recommended changes to the WIC food packages based 
on the current nutritional needs of WIC participants and advances in 
nutrition science.


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 
interim final rulemaking. A regulatory impact analysis will be 
published as an appendix to the interim final rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule provides a 
reasonable estimate of the anticipated effects of the interim final 
rule. This analysis estimated that the provisions of the proposed rule 
would have a minimal impact on the costs of overall operations of the 
WIC Program over 5 years. The regulatory impact analysis was published 
as an appendix.


Risks:


The proposed rule to revise regulations pertaining to the supplemental 
foods provided through the WIC Program was published in the Federal 
Register on August 7, 2006 (71 FR 44784), with a 90-day comment period. 
The regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix. A total of 
46,502 comment letters were received on the proposed rule. The interim 
final rule also provides a comment period. 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                            08/07/06                    71 FR 44784
NPRM Comment Period End         11/06/06
Interim Final Rule              12/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   02/00/08
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD77
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




17. 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

[[Page 69772]]

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. 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 for shell egg packers that will provide 
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended 
for human consumption or further processing.


Statement of Need:


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 Costs 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 on the 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.


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 80 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 alternative.


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.


The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are 
approximately $7.0 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the 
proposed action are approximately $90.0 million per year.


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 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. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for SE in eggs and 
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk 
associated with the regulatory alternatives.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 69773]]

Agency Contact:
Victoria 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



18.  CHANGES TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS CONTAINING MEAT AND POULTRY

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 601(j); 21 U.S.C. 454(f)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to 
determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible. 
This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or 
poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to 
amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to 
provide consistency and predictability in the jurisdiction over nine 
products or product categories for which there has historically been 
confusion concerning whether these products fall within the 
jurisdiction of FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese 
and cheese products prepared with less than 50% meat or poultry; 
breads, rolls and buns prepared with less than 50% meat or poultry; 
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or 
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50% meat or 
poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs, 
natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act.


Statement of Need:


Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under 
which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced 
based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the 
product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a 
term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the 
product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry 
industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an 
accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS 
made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to 
situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement. 
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made 
sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004-2005 by a 
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives highlighted that some of 
the decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product 
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations were not 
fully articulated or supported.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), and the Egg 
Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the regulations 
that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat food and 
poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement it, 
FDA has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction, 
including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other 
produce, and other products, such as seafood.


According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the 
authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of 
a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C. 
454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) the product contains only a 
relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry 
ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by 
consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under 
such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock 
or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are 
not represented as meat food or poultry products.


Alternatives:


FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify 
the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products.


Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered 
taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this 
option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry 
and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of 
products.


Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction 
decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would 
be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of 
the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading 
to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products 
containing meat or poultry.


Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working group's suggested 
approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by 
proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on 
exempted products.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FSIS estimates that the net costs of the rule would be approximately 
$12 million. This consists of approximately $18 million of one-time and 
annual costs for establishments producing product that will transfer to 
FSIS jurisdiction and net savings of $6 million for establishments 
producing time product that will transfer to FDA jurisdiction.


FSIS' preliminary estimate of total benefits of the rule is 
approximately $15 million. Benefits would accrue to FSIS and FDA for 
personnel time saved and to industry for personnel saved.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses

[[Page 69774]]

Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-3625
Fax: 202 720-0582
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



19.  PUBLIC HEALTH-BASED POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR 381.83 9 CFR 381.91; 9 
CFR 381.94


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter 
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection. 
This new system would be available initially only to young chicken 
slaughter establishments. Establishments that slaughter broilers, 
fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined in 9 CFR 381.170) 
would be considered as ``young chicken establishments.'' FSIS is also 
proposing to revoke the provisions that allow young chicken slaughter 
establishments to operate under the current Streamlined Inspection 
System (SIS) or the New Line Speed (NELS) Inspection System. The 
proposed rule would establish new performance standards to reduce 
pathogens. FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would provide the 
framework for action to provide public health-based inspection in all 
establishments that slaughter amenable poultry species.


Under the proposed new system, young chicken slaughter establishments 
would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to conduct other 
activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated before they 
enter the chilling tank.


Statement of Need:


Because of the risk to the public health associated with pathogens on 
young chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing a new inspection system that 
would allow for more effective inspection of young chicken carcasses, 
would allow the Agency to more effectively allocate its resources, 
would encourage industry to more readily use new technology, and would 
include new performance standards to reduce pathogens.


This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it would 
facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter 
establishments. It would likely result in more cost-effective dressing 
of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready for further 
processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more efficient and 
effective use of Agency resources.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) with carrying out a 
mandatory poultry products inspection program. The Act requires post-
mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject to 
the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). 
The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as 
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C. 
463(b)). The Agency has tentatively determined that this rule would 
facilitate FSIS post-mortem inspection of young chicken carcasses. The 
proposed new system would likely result in more efficient and effective 
use of Agency resources and in industry innovations.


Alternatives:


FSIS considered the following options in developing this proposal:


1) No action.


2) Propose to implement HACCP-Based Inspection Models Pilot in 
regulations.


3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new 
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.


4) Propose standards of identity regulations for young chickens that 
include trim and processing defect criteria and that take into account 
the intended use of the product.


5) Propose a voluntary new inspection system for young chicken 
slaughter establishments and propose standards of identity for whole 
chickens, regardless of the products' intended use.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed performance standards and the implementation of public 
health-based inspection would likely improve the public health. FSIS is 
conducting a risk assessment for this proposed rule to assess the 
likely public health benefits that the implementation of this rule may 
achieve.


Establishments that volunteer for this proposed new inspection system 
alternative would likely need to make capital investments in facilities 
and equipment. They may also need to add labor (trained employees). 
However, one of the beneficial effects of these investments would 
likely be the lowering of the average cost per pound to dress poultry 
properly. Cost savings would likely result because of increased line 
speeds, increased productivity, and increased flexibility to industry. 
The expected lower average unit cost for dressing poultry would likely 
give a marketing advantage to establishments under the new system. 
Consumers would likely benefit from lower retail prices for high 
quality poultry products. The rule would also likely provide 
opportunities for the industry to innovate because of the increased 
flexibility it would allow poultry slaughter establishments. In 
addition, in the public sector, benefits would accrue to FSIS from the 
more effective deployment of FSIS inspection program personnel to 
verify process control based on risk factors at each establishment.


Risks:


Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial portion of 
poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella cause a large 
number of human illnesses that at times lead to hospitalization and 
even death. There is an apparent relationship between human illness and 
prevalence levels for salmonella in young chicken carcasses. FSIS 
believes that through better allocation of inspection resources and the 
use of performance standards, it would be able to reduce the prevalence 
of salmonella and other pathogens in young chickens.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No

[[Page 69775]]

Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




20. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND 
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT 
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, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria 
monocytogenes in RTE 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:


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 are necessary to 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.


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 Costs and Benefits:


Benefits are expected to result from fewer 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. FSIS currently estimates net benefits from 
the 2003 interim final rule from $500 to $700 million, with annual 
costs at $98.7 million, if FSIS discounts the capital cost at 7%. FSIS 
is continuing to analyze the potential impact of the other provisions 
of the proposal.


The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality 
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157: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. 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. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of 
foodborne illness.


Risks:


Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated 
that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of foodborne 
illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated that about 
65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths per year, 
were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The analysis of the 
interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes conservatively 
estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to an annual 
reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses. FSIS is continuing to 
analyze data on production volume and Listeria controls in the RTE meat 
and poultry products industry and is using the FSIS risk assessment 
model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely risk reduction 
effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that the risk 
reductions being achieved are somewhat greater than those estimated in 
the analysis of the interim rule.


FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be 
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance 
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The 
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being 
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's 
public health protection effort.


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

[[Page 69776]]

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
Affirmation of Interim 
    Final Rule                  03/00/08
Final Action                    08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



21. 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. Ground or chopped products 
are similar to multi-ingredient products. This rule is necessary so 
that consumers can have the information they need to construct healthy 
diets.


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 Costs 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 if consumers 
modify 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. FSIS estimates that the discounted 
annual benefits of the rule will range from approximately $200 to $250 
million using a 7% discount rate. FSIS estimates that the discounted 
annual costs will be approximately $30 million, using a 7% discount 
rate.


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                    08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-3625
Fax: 202 720-0582
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



22. AVAILABILITY OF LISTS OF RETAIL CONSIGNEES DURING MEAT OR POULTRY 
PRODUCT RECALLS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301, 552

[[Page 69777]]

CFR Citation:


9 CFR 390


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed 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 has proposed 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:


This regulatory action is necessary to provide important information to 
help consumers identify recalled products.


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 regulatory action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental 
regulations, and 5 U.S.C. 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 has prepared 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) 
Including local health departments as entities that could receive 
recall distribution lists; (2) making available to the general public 
recall distribution lists only in response to a Freedom of Information 
request; and (3) making lists available to State agencies with 
agreements with FSIS under 9 CFR 390.9.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking.


This regulatory action 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.


If consumers use retail consignee information and are better able to 
identify and return recalled meat and poultry products to the stores 
where they purchased them, the recall process will be more timely and 
effective. Potential benefits of the proposal are expected as a result 
of making more information available to consumers regarding the 
location of meat and poultry products subject to recall. The Agency 
does not expect the benefits to be significant. There is no research or 
empirical evidence upon which to quantify potential benefits.


Risks:


N/A


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/07/06                    71 FR 11326
NPRM Comment Period End         06/11/06                    71 FR 27211
Final Action                    07/00/08

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
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




23. FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCEDURES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


40 CFR 1507.3


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 220


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Forest Service is proposing to move existing Agency NEPA procedures 
required by 40 CFR 1507.3 from Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 to the 
CFR, add new procedures, and edit some existing procedures. Presently, 
Forest Service procedures are combined with Agency guidance in FSH 
1909.15 along with quotations from the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations. Having Agency NEPA procedures in regulations, separate 
from guidance, will make it easier for the Forest Service to provide 
guidance through the agency directive system. Agency internal processes 
will continue to reside in FSH 1909.15 with references to both CEQ and 
Forest Service NEPA procedures.


Statement of Need:


The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA 
procedures, required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 
codified at 40 CFR 1507.3, from the internal Forest Service 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to the Code 
of Federal Regulations. New procedures would be added and existing 
procedures would be revised where clarity is needed to incorporate CEQ 
guidance and align agency NEPA procedures with agency decision 
processes.


Presently, the Forest Service NEPA procedures are combined with Agency 
guidance in FSH 1909.15 along with quotations from the CEQ regulations. 
This handbook contains general guidance such as how to select an 
interdisciplinary team, thereby associating guidance with NEPA 
procedures. Guidance and quotes from the CEQ regulations are important 
to

[[Page 69778]]

internal Agency work, but bear little similarity to the Agency 
procedures contemplated in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 
Changes to Agency guidance in FSH 1909.15 currently involve 
consultation with CEQ because the handbook does not differentiate 
between NEPA guidance and ``procedures.'' This makes it more difficult 
to update simple guidance.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1507.3) 
direct Federal agencies to develop NEPA procedures to supplement the 
CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations require agencies to provide for 
public notice and comment and CEQ consultation when developing and 
revising Agency NEPA procedures.


Alternatives:


A possible alternative would be to have the CEQ revise its regulations 
or seek legislative changes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Codifying agency NEPA procedures in regulation, separate from guidance, 
would make it easier for the Forest Service to provide guidance through 
the agency directive system. General guidance and internal processes 
would reside in the FSH 1909.15 handbook with references to both CEQ 
and Forest Service NEPA procedures set out in the CFR. This will make 
future revisions to internal agency guidance more responsive to new 
ideas and information. Having the agency NEPA procedures at the same 
level as the CEQ regulations would also give them equal status in 
court.


New procedures and revisions to existing procedures would further 
define how the agency must comply with NEPA where the CEQ regulations 
lack clarity, when additional CEQ guidance has been issued, or when 
there are more efficient or applicable procedures appropriate to Agency 
decisionmaking. With more flexibility in how NEPA documents are 
prepared, the NEPA process is expected to be more efficient and 
responsive to decision maker needs.


Risks:


More NEPA procedural requirements could be added which would add to the 
present processes. Also, given that some of the proposed procedures 
would allow more flexibility and options to comply with NEPA, the 
results could be a more complex set of regulations for the field to 
understand.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/07

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
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-AC49
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FS



24. SPECIAL AREAS; STATE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT: 
IDAHO

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 553(e); 7 CFR 1.28


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 294


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 5, 2006, the Governor of Idaho submitted a petition under 
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) 
and Agriculture Department regulation (7 CFR 1.28) to promulgate 
regulations, in cooperation with the State, for management of 9.3 
million acres of inventoried roadless areas within the State. After 
review and recommendation by the Roadless Area Conservation National 
Advisory Committee, the Secretary accepted the Governor's petition and 
initiated a proposed rulemaking for the roadless areas in Idaho. The 
proposed rulemaking would manage Idaho's inventoried roadless areas 
under four main themes listed from most restrictive to least: Wildland 
Recreation (1.4 million acres), Primitive (1.7 million acres), 
Backcountry (5.5 million acres), and General Forest (0.5 million 
acres). The proposed rulemaking also will establish three important 
tribal and historical sites as ``Special Areas'' (0.2 million acres). 
Road construction and reconstruction plus timber harvesting would be 
prohibited in certain inventoried roadless areas on the Boise, Caribou-
Targhee, Clearwater, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai (portions), Nez Perce, 
Payette, Salmon-Challis, Sawtooth, and Wallowa-Whitman (portions) 
National Forests in Idaho. Exceptions to the prohibitions would be 
allowed for certain health, safety, valid existing rights, resource 
protection, and ecological management needs.


Statement of Need:


The Department of Agriculture is committed to conserving and managing 
roadless values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important 
component of the National Forest System. The roadless rule has been the 
subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North 
Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. On July 14, 
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the 
2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be 
permanently enjoined. On May 13, 2005 the Forest Service promulgated 
the State Petitions Rule.


The State Petitions Rule allowed Governors to voluntarily seek 
establishment of or adjustment of management requirements for National 
Forest System inventoried roadless areas within their States. If a 
petition was not received within 18 months, inventoried roadless areas 
would be guided by individual land management plans. In also 
established the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee 
(RACNAC) to make recommendations on State-petitions to the Secretary. 
With the promulgation of the State Petitions Rule, the Tenth Circuit, 
which was reviewing an appeal by intervenors of the Wyoming court's 
decision, dismissed the case as moot. Under the guidance of the State 
Petitions Rule the States of California, Idaho, New Mexico, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia filed a petition with the 
Secretary. The Secretary instructed the Forest Service to enter into 
rulemaking for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Two 
lawsuits were filed against the State Petitions Rule in the Federal 
district court for the Northern District of California.

[[Page 69779]]

One suit was filed by the States of California, New Mexico, Oregon, and 
Washington with the State of Montana being amicus curiae in support of 
plaintiffs; and the States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae to 
USDA. The other lawsuit was filed by a coalition of environmental 
groups. On September 20, 2006, the Federal district court enjoined the 
State Petitions Rule and reinstated the RACR. In an effort to again re-
enjoin the RACR, the State of Wyoming filed a second lawsuit in the 
Federal district court for Wyoming on January 12, 2007. Oral hearing 
for this lawsuit is schedule for October 19. With the reinstatement of 
RACR, the Under Secretary announced that interested States could still 
petition the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. 
Sec. 1.28.


On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor James Risch resubmitted his petition 
under these authorities. The RACNAC reviewed the petition and made 
recommendations to the Secretary on December 19, 2006. On December 22, 
2006, the Secretary directed the Forest Service to begin the rulemaking 
process with the State.


Collaboratively working on the establishment of a State-specific 
roadless rule for the petitioning State will allow the State the level 
of management of inventoried roadless areas it seeks to best meet its 
needs in balance with the Department's and Forest Service's goals for 
the conserving and managing roadless values nationally. In addition, it 
will allow for the management of these lands in that State without 
being affected by other legal actions concerning the roadless rule or 
State Petitions Rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) to provide for the conservation 
and management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried 
roadless areas within the National Forest System under the principles 
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The State of Idaho 
petitioned the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. 
Sec. 1.28 for state-specific rules to replace this national rule in 
that State.


Alternatives:


The Forest Service is preparing environmental impact statements in 
support of the rulemaking effort. Besides the proposed rule, two 
alternatives are being considered (1) continuation of the RACR for 
management of these inventoried roadless areas, and (2) using existing 
forest plans and future forest plan revisions to determine the 
management of these areas.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Three alternatives have been analyzed for benefits, costs, and 
distributional effects are: 2001 Roadless Rule, existing forest plan, 
and the proposed rule are analyzed. A range of baseline conditions, 
represented by the 2001 Rule and existing forest plans alternatives, 
are adopted to characterize the mix of goods and services provided by 
National Forests and Grasslands in the near future in the absence of 
the proposed rule. The proposed rule is programmatic in nature, 
consisting of direction for road construction, road reconstruction, 
timber harvesting, and discretionary mineral activities, which would be 
applied to future management activities on inventoried roadless areas 
in Idaho. In general, the proposed rule does not affect the efficiency 
of individual operations or activities (e.g., individual timber sale) 
associated with forest resources and/or services, but may instead 
affect the number or extent of opportunities as a function of 
activities permitted on National Forest system lands. Because the 
proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is 
difficult to quantify the benefits under the different alternatives.


Risks:


The rule is programmatic in nature and would constrain certain 
activities that would reduce roadless area characteristics. Reducing or 
controlling the development of these lands will reduce the risk of 
environmental effects associated with development activities like road 
construction, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction. Therefore 
soil, water, and air quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of 
plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, 
proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large, 
undisturbed areas of land; scenic quality; traditional cultural 
properties and sacred sites; and other locally unique characteristics 
would be maintained.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 0596-AC58, Related to 0596-AC59, Related to 
0596-AC60
RIN: 0596-AC62
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FS



25.  SPECIAL AREAS; STATE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA 
MANAGEMENT: COLORADO

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 294


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On April 11, 2007, Governor of Colorado Ritter submitted a petition 
under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(e)) and Agriculture Department regulation (7 CFR 1.28) to 
promulgate regulations, in cooperation with the State, for the 
management of inventoried roadless areas within the State of Colorado. 
After review and recommendation by the Roadless Area Conservation 
National Advisory Committee, the Secretary accepted the Governor's 
petition and initiated a proposed rulemaking for inventoried roadless 
areas in Colorado. The proposed rulemaking would manage Colorado's 
inventoried roadless areas by prohibiting road building and tree 
cutting, with some exceptions, on 4.1 million acres of inventoried 
roadless areas in Colorado. The 4.1 million acres reflect the most 
updated IRA boundaries for Colorado, which incorporate planning rule 
revisions since 2001 on several Colorado national forests. Inventoried 
roadless areas that

[[Page 69780]]

are allocated to ski area special uses (approximately 10,000 acres) 
would also be removed from roadless designation. Road construction and 
reconstruction plus timber harvesting would be prohibited in 
inventoried roadless areas, with some exceptions, on the Arapaho-
Roosevelt, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre, Gunnison, Manti-La Sal, Pike-San 
Isabel, Rio Grande, Routt, San Juan, and White River National Forests 
in Colorado. Exceptions to the prohibitions would be allowed for 
certain health, safety, valid existing rights, resource protection, and 
ecological management needs.


The goal of the Department is to have the State-Specific Rule for 
Inventoried Roadless Areas in Colorado in place by September 2008.


Statement of Need:


The Department of Agriculture is committed to conserving and managing 
roadless values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important 
component of the National Forest System. The roadless rule has been the 
subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North 
Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. On July 14, 
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the 
2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be 
permanently enjoined. On May 13, 2005, the Forest Service promulgated 
the State Petitions Rule. The State Petitions Rule allowed Governors to 
voluntarily seek establishment of or adjustment of management 
requirements for National Forest System inventoried roadless areas 
within their States. If a petition was not received within 18 months, 
inventoried roadless areas would be guided by individual land 
management plans. In also established the Roadless Area Conservation 
National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) to make recommendations on State-
petitions to the Secretary. With the promulgation of the State 
Petitions Rule, the Tenth Circuit, which was reviewing an appeal by 
intervenors of the Wyoming court's decision, dismissed the case as 
moot. Under the guidance of the State Petitions Rule the States of 
California, Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Virginia filed a petition with the Secretary. The Secretary instructed 
the Forest Service to enter into rulemaking for North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Virginia. Two lawsuits were filed against the State 
Petitions Rule in the Federal district court for the Northern District 
of California.


One suit was filed by the States of California, New Mexico, Oregon, and 
Washington with the State of Montana being amicus curiae in support of 
plaintiffs; and the States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae to 
USDA. The other lawsuit was filed by a coalition of environmental 
groups. On September 20, 2006, the Federal district court enjoined the 
State Petitions Rule and reinstated the roadless rule. In an effort to 
again re-enjoin the roadless rule, the State of Wyoming filed a second 
lawsuit in the Federal district court for Wyoming on January 12, 2007. 
Oral hearing for this lawsuit is schedule for October 19. With the 
reinstatement of roadless rule, the Under Secretary announced that 
interested States could still petition the Secretary pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. Sec. 1.28. On November 13, 2006, 
Colorado Governor Bill Owens submitted his petition under these 
authorities. On April 11, 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter 
resubmitted the petition with amendments. The RACNAC reviewed the 
petition and made recommendations to the Secretary on August 2, 2007.


Collaboratively working on the establishment of a State-specific 
roadless rule for the petitioning State will allow the State the level 
of management of inventoried roadless areas it seeks to best meet its 
needs in balance with the Department's and Forest Service's goals for 
the conserving and managing roadless values nationally. In addition, it 
will allow for the management of these lands in that State without 
being affected by other legal actions concerning the roadless rule or 
State Petitions Rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule to provide for the conservation and 
management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless 
areas within the National Forest System under the principles of the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The State of Colorado has 
petitioned the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. 
Sec. 1.28 for state-specific rules to replace this national rule.


Alternatives:


The Forest Service is preparing environmental impact statements in 
support of the rulemaking effort. Besides the proposed rule, two 
alternatives are being considered (1) continuation of the RACR for 
management of these inventoried roadless areas, and (2) using existing 
forest plans and future forest plan revisions to determine the 
management of these areas.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is anticipated that this proposed rule will not be an economically 
significant rule, and will not have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local 
governments. This proposed rule is not expected to interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another Agency nor raise new legal or policy 
issues. This proposed rule will not alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients of such programs. Furthermore, the proposed 
rule is programmatic in nature, consisting of direction for road 
construction, road reconstruction, timber harvesting, special uses 
including ski resorts, and discretionary mineral activities, which 
would be applied to future management activities on inventoried 
roadless areas in Colorado.


Risks:


The rule is programmatic in nature and would constrain certain 
activities that would reduce roadless area characteristics. Reducing or 
controlling the development of these lands will reduce the risk of 
environmental effects associated with development activities like road 
construction, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction. Therefore 
soil, water, and air quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of 
plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, 
proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large, 
undisturbed areas of land; scenic quality; traditional cultural 
properties and sacred sites; and other locally unique characteristics 
would be maintained.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Rule                   03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


URL For More Information:
http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

[[Page 69781]]

Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
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-AC74
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




26.  PLANNING SUBPART A - NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND 
MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 16 USC 1604, 1614


CFR Citation:


36 CFR Part 219


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Forest Service is proposing to provide notice and seek comment from 
the public on the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1022) as published in the 
Federal Register on January 5, 2005. This action responds to an order 
dated March 30, 2007 by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District 
Court Judge in Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. US DA (N.D. 
Calif.)). The judge enjoined the USDA from implementation and 
utilization of the 2005 planning rule until it provides notice and 
comment and complies with APA, ESA, and NEPA. The rule, cost benefit 
analysis, and civil rights impact analysis have been cleared by the 
Department and OMB as documented in the January 5, 2005 Federal 
Register notice.


This action is a continuation of the 2005 planning rule that describes 
the National Forest System land management planning framework; 
establishes requirements for sustainability of social, economic, and 
ecological systems and developing, amending, revising, and monitoring 
land management plans; and clarifies that land management plans under 
this final rule, absent extraordinary circumstances, are strategic in 
nature and are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for 
management of National Forest System lands.


Statement of Need:


The Forest Service is providing notice and opportunity for comment on a 
proposed rule for National Forest System land management planning, and 
then adopting a final rule at 36 CFR 219, subpart A. This rulemaking is 
the result of a U.S. district court order dated March 30, 2007, which 
enjoined the United States Department of Agriculture from 
implementation and utilization of the land management planning rule 
published in 2005 (70 FR1023) until it complies with the court's order 
regarding the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry 
et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-1144 (N. D. Cal.)). The purpose of this 
rulemaking is to respond to the court's ruling about notice and comment 
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act by publishing the 
2005 rule as a proposed rule. In addition, the Agency is preparing an 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act and will comply with the court's order regarding the Endangered 
Species Act.


The Agency is committed to transparent rulemaking and public 
participation, and provided a notice and comment period for the 
proposed 2005 rule (December 6, 2002, 67 FR 72770). In the final 2005 
rule, the Agency changed the provisions for timber management 
requirements, changed the provisions for making changes to the 
monitoring program, and added provisions for environmental management 
system (EMS). The Environmental Management System provisions require 
the Agency to define a structure and system of organizational 
activities, responsibilities, practices, and procedures for carrying 
out the Agency environmental policy. The court found that the proposed 
rule did not provide sufficient notice to the public of these changes 
to the final rule such that the final rule was not the logical 
outgrowth of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency is providing 
notice and seeking comment on a proposed rule that is essentially 
identical to the 2005 final rule, including the changes made to the 
final 2005 planning rule.


Regarding NEPA, the court further found that the 2005 planning rule did 
not fit the Agency's categorical exclusion for servicewide 
administrative procedures. That categorical exclusion, developed with 
public participation, is a recognized method of NEPA compliance. Under 
the court's order, however, further environmental analysis under NEPA 
is required. The Agency published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register on May 11, 2007 
(72 FR 26775), to start the public involvement process pursuant to 
NEPA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88 
Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 
1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.), requires the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations under the principles of the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the process for the 
development and revision of land management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)).


Alternatives:


The draft environmental impact statement accompanying the proposed rule 
documents detailed analysis of the proposed rule and four other 
alternatives. Those other alternatives are the 2000 planning rule, the 
1982 planning rule, and two variations of the 2005 planning rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Annualized costs of implementing the proposed rule (2005 rule) have 
been estimated and discounted at three percent and seven percent 
discount rates for the period 2008 to 2022. Those discounted costs are 
$99 million at three percent and $99.2 million at seven percent. This 
represents an estimated annualized savings over the 2000 rule of $30 
million at three percent and $28 million at seven percent.


Numerous non-quantifiable benefits are expected to result from the 
final planning rule. The overall goal of the proposed rule is more 
clearly based on the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and 
better describes the relationship of the MUSYA to sustainability. This 
feature more clearly defines Agency responsibilities to weigh and 
balance uses of NFS lands for the benefit of the American people. The 
proposed rule is based on a stronger emphasis on working with the 
public, other Federal agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and 
others, and should result in more social satisfaction with Agency 
efforts and

[[Page 69782]]

management. The incorporation of ecologically-based management 
principles, improved monitoring and evaluation, and consideration of 
science in planning, should result in a flexible process that reduces 
the burden on both the public and the Agency. An efficient planning 
process that addresses public concerns and leads to improved health of 
public lands has value beyond the cost savings estimated in the 
analysis. Therefore, it is highly likely that the proposed rule is 
beneficial to the public interest.


Risks:


The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and resources 
of the National Forest System (NFS), which include 193 million acres in 
44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The NFS is composed of 
155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, one national prairie, and 
other miscellaneous lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture (the Secretary). The planning rule would establish 
administrative procedures whereby land management plans for NFS units 
are developed, revised, and amended.


The 2005 planning rule was developed to take advantage of the 
experience gained from 25 years of implementing the National Forest 
Management Act. The rule improves on both the 1982 and 2000 planning 
rules. The findings from two reviews of the 2000 planning rule can be 
summarized as follows: it has both definitions and analytical 
requirements that are very complex, unclear, and, therefore, subject to 
inconsistent implementation across the Agency; compliance with the 
regulatory direction on such matters as ecological sustainability and 
science consistency checks would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
accomplish; and, the complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and 
expensive to implement. This newest planning rule is intended to 
provide a planning process that is readily understood, is within the 
Agency's capability to implement, is consistent with the capabilities 
of National Forest System lands, recognizes the strategic programmatic 
nature of planning, and meets the intent of the National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) while making cost effective and efficient use of 
resources allocated to the Agency for land management planning. Absent 
this rule, the Agency would have to continue to use the 2000 rule with 
all of its identified deficiencies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Andria Weeks
Regulatory Anaylst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATT: 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-AC70
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




27. DELIVERY ENHANCEMENT FOR GUARANTEED LOANS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 7 USC 1926(a)(1); 7 USC 1932(a); 7 USC 8106


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 4279, subpart A; 7 CFR 4279, subpart B; 7 CFR 4287, subpart B; 7 
CFR 4280, subpart B; 7 CFR 3575, subpart A


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Rural Development is proposing a unified guaranteed loan platform for 
enhanced delivery of four existing Rural Development guaranteed loan 
programs--Community Facility; Water and Waste Disposal; Business and 
Industry; and Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency 
Improvement Projects. The proposed rulemaking would eliminate the 
existing loan guarantee regulations for these four programs and 
consolidate them under a new, single part.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule will consolidate certain provisions of the existing 
regulations for guaranteed loans under the community facilities, water 
and waste disposal, business and industry, and renewable energy systems 
and energy efficiency improvement programs. The consolidation will 
result in greater consistency among common program provisions, as well 
as, increased management efficiency while reducing program losses.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, and section 
9006 of the farm Security and Rural investment Act of 2002 (107 Pub. L. 
171)


Alternatives:


Leave the existing regulations supporting the four Rural Development 
guaranteed loan programs intact and unconsolidated, which requires 
lenders and borrowers to be separately determined eligible and approved 
for each of the four programs, and to be adept and knowledgeable of 
each programs separate regulations and forms.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency's benefit cost analysis indicates that the benefits derived 
from the rule are reduced paper work and risk of loss to the 
Government. The benefit cost analysis estimates that the consolidation 
and streamlining program delivery will reduce paperwork costs by 30 
percent for a savings of $1.3 million for lenders and borrowers. The 
Government will benefit from reduced losses resulting from improved 
program management and there could be some modest administrative cost 
savings.


Risks:


The proposed rule would reduce project risk by implementing new 
requirements for determining minimum project eligibility, including 
certain debt coverage and loan to value ratio requirements.


The proposed rule would reduce institutional risk by establishing 
criteria for approved and preferred lenders. With more stringent 
eligibility requirements, including specific experience requirements, 
the agency expects to benefit from preferred lenders seeking guarantees 
on higher quality loans.


The proposed rule would reduce agency risk exposure by allowing 
approved lenders to submit a low

[[Page 69783]]

documentation application, if the borrower meets increased financial 
requirements for debt coverage and loan to value ratios and has a 
credit score comparable to private commercial lending practices. The 
maximum loan guarantee will be reduced by 10 percent when approved 
lenders submit low documentation applications under $5 million.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/14/07                    72 FR 52618
NPRM Comment Period End         11/13/07
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Michael Foore
Program Advisor, Office of the Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0056
Fax: 202 690-4737
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0570-AA41
RIN: 0570-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Rural Utilities Service (RUS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




28. RURAL BROADBAND ACCESS LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-171; 7 USC 901 et seq


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1738


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


There has been more than $1.1 billion in loans for broadband deployment 
with more than 1,000 rural communities that will receive broadband 
services. Even with this level of success, the program needs to be 
adjusted to better serve unserved or underserved communities. In 
response, we are revising the broadband rule to address this and other 
critical issues, and further facilitate the deployment of broadband 
service in rural America as directed by Congress by: (1) Clearly 
defining served, underserved markets based on service availability and 
existing competitors and target unserved an underserved areas; (2) 
Providing potential applicants with a clear definition of which 
communities are eligible for funding; (3) Establishing a minimum data 
transmission rate that the facilities financed must be able to deliver 
to the consumer; (4) Establishing equity requirements that mitigate 
risks; (5) Modifying market survey requirements based on service 
territories and existing availability of service; and (6) Imposing new 
time limits for build-out and deployment to ensure prudent use of loan 
funds and timely delivery services to rural customers.


Statement of Need:


Since the Broadband Loan Program's inception, the Agency has faced and 
continues to face significant challenges in administering the program, 
including the fierce competitive nature of the broadband market, the 
fact that many companies proposing to offer broadband service are 
start-up organizations with limited resources, continually evolving 
technology, and economic factors such as the higher cost of serving 
rural communities. Because of these challenges, the Agency has been 
reviewing the characteristics of the Broadband Loan Program and has 
determined that modifications are required to accelerate the deployment 
of broadband service to the rural areas of the country.


The Broadband Loan Program is important to the revitalization of our 
rural communities and their economies. A lack of private capital has 
been cited as a reason for slow broadband deployment. However, an 
adequate supply of investment capital alone may not be sufficient to 
universally deploy broadband facilities in rural America--primarily due 
to the high cost of deployment outside of more densely populated areas. 
Due to market uncertainties and risks associated with startup ventures, 
non-federal sources of funding are restricting and raising the cost of 
capital, particularly in costly rural markets. Better access to low 
cost capital is a primary initiative of this program in facilitating as 
increase in the rate of rural broadband deployment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-171 (``Farm Bill'') was signed into law. Title VI of the 
Farm Bill authorized the Agency to approve loans and loan guarantees 
for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition of 
facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural 
communities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The program costs associated with lending activity are relatively low. 
The average subsidy rate since the programs inception is 2.4 percent, 
or $24,000 in appropriated budget authority for every $1 million in 
loans. The residents and businesses of rural communities are the 
beneficiaries. Rural Development is responsible for helping rural 
America transition from an agricultural base economy to a platform for 
new business and economic opportunity. Rural Development seeks to 
leverage its financial resources with private investment to facilitate 
the development of the changing rural economy. The Broadband Loan 
Program provides rural America with the platform on which to achieve 
these goals. With access to the same advanced telecommunications 
networks as its urban counterparts, especially broadband networks 
designed to accommodate distance learning, telework and telemedicine, 
rural America will eventually see improving educational opportunities, 
health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher 
employment. The Agency shares the assessment of Congress, state and 
local officials, industry representatives, and rural residents that 
broadband service is a critical component to the future of rural 
America. The Agency is committed to ensuring that rural America will 
have access to affordable, reliable, broadband services, and to provide 
a healthy, safe and prosperous place to live and work.


Risks:


Building broadband infrastructure in sparsely populated rural 
communities is very capital intensive. The Broadband Loan Program 
continues to face risk factors that pose challenges in ensuring that 
proposed projects can and do deliver robust, affordable broadband 
services to rural consumers. These factors include the sometimes 
competitive nature of the broadband market, the fact that many 
companies

[[Page 69784]]

proposing to offer broadband service are start-up organizations with 
limited resources, rapidly evolving technology, and economic factors 
such as the higher cost of serving rural communities. While many of the 
smallest rural communities understand the importance of broadband 
infrastructure to their economic development, they often have 
difficulty attracting service providers to their communities.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/11/07                    72 FR 26742
NPRM Comment Period End         07/10/07
Final Action                    03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Michele L Brooks
Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Room 5159 South Building
Stop 1522
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 690-1078
Fax: 202 720-8435
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0572-AC06
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S

[[Page 69785]]




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 improve 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 supports our programs and by working closely with the 
President and the committees in Congress that 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 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 tracks the most important regulations that 
implement these policy and program priorities, several 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) will be 
planning actions that are considered the ``most important'' significant 
preregulatory or regulatory action for fiscal year 2008. During the 
next year, NOAA plans to publish four rulemaking actions that are 
designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these 
actions is 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

[[Page 69786]]

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 Department has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of 
any regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, 
gender, or any other suspect category, and requires that all 
regulations be written so as to be understandable to those affected by 
them. The Secretary also requires that 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 designed to boost 
long term economic growth in a vital sector of the US economy while 
minimizing any economic dislocation necessary to ensure 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 
and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market based ecosystem 
approaches to management; 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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of 
fishery resources in the U.S. 3- to 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. 
Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in 
fiscal year 2008, 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.
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 issues including maximizing 
fishing opportunities on health stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, 
and addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may 
address is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing 
capacity) of fisheries. This may be resolved by market based systems 
such as allocating the resource through individual transferable quotas, 
which can be sold on the open market to other participants

[[Page 69787]]

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.
On January 17, 2007, the President signed into law the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). 
This important new law is identified by the President as one of his 
priority actions in the U.S. Ocean Plan. The enactment of the law 
reaffirms the importance of the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but 
more importantly, it implements important groundbreaking provisions 
that could enhance fisheries management. The new measures implemented 
by this law would work to end overfishing; promote market-based 
management approaches; improve science by providing a stronger role for 
peer review and for the Councils' Science and Statistical Committees 
(SSC) in decision-making, and improving the collection of accurate and 
precise fishing data; and enhance international cooperation by 
addressing Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch 
of protected living marine resources. NMFS will be initiating several 
rulemakings in the coming year to implement these important provisions.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority 
for the conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S. 
jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take 
of marine mammals. Exceptions include the collection of wild animals 
for scientific research or public display or to enhance the survival of 
a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to 
establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and 
injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. The Act also 
established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes recommendations 
to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and 
other Federal officials on protecting and conserving marine mammals. 
The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow for takings 
incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide certain 
exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require the 
preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters 
under U.S. jurisdiction.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation 
of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or ``threatened,'' 
and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend. 
The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 
jointly administer the provision in the Act. NMFS manages marine and 
``anadromous'' species and FWS manages land and freshwater species. 
Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically imperiled species 
from extinction. Of the 1,310 listed species found in part or entirely 
in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over 
approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on 
determining whether any species under its responsibility is an 
endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be 
added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for 
designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed 
species. In addition, under the ESA's procedural framework, federal 
agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, 
or carried out by that agency that may affect one of the listed species 
or designated critical habitat, or is likely to jeopardize proposed 
species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat that is under 
NMFS' jurisdiction.
NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the 
level necessary to be included in the Department's Regulatory Plan, 
NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the level of ``most 
important'' of the Departments significant regulatory actions, and thus 
are included in this year's Regulatory Plan. Three actions implement 
provisions of the Magnuson-Steven Reauthorization Act (MSRA), and are 
summarized below:
``Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Reauthorization Act of 
2006'' -- This action would provide regions with interpretive guidance 
on the use of Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP) as fishery 
management tools. The guidance is intended to assist the fishery 
management councils and NMFS regional offices in developing and 
implementing LAPPS.
``Guidance for Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures to End 
Overfishing'' -- In this action, NMFS would implement provisions that 
require fishery management plans to establish annual catch limits 
(ACLs), including regulations and annual specifications, at a level 
such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery. In addition, this 
action would implement measures to ensure accountability.
``Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU 
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources'' -- In this 
action, NMFS would establish a process of identification and 
certification to address Illegal, Unreported, or

[[Page 69788]]

Unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in 
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have 
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine 
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress. NMFS 
would subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken 
appropriate corrective action with respect to the activities of its 
fishing vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.
In addition to actions related to the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization 
Act, NMFS is developing one action under the authority of the ESA 
entitled ``Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Implement Speed Restrictions 
to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right 
Whales.'' In this action, NMFS proposes to impose speed restrictions on 
ships in certain areas during certain times of the year in an attempt 
to reduce mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result of 
collisions with vessels, which account for more confirmed right whale 
deaths than any other human-related activity. The strategy addresses 
the lack of recovery of the endangered North Atlantic right whale by 
reducing the likelihood of ship strike mortalities to the species. NMFS 
has developed a framework of proposed, new operational measures for the 
shipping industry as an element of this strategy, including 
consideration of routing and speed restrictions. These operational 
measures would be limited to areas and times when North Atlantic right 
whales and ships overlap to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes to 
the extent practicable.
NOAA's four Regulatory Plan actions support several of the President's 
priorities as stated in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Specifically, NMFS' 
regulatory actions implement the President's ongoing effort to combat 
international illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities 
through its proposed identification and certification process; support 
the goal to use market-based systems for fisheries management by using 
dedicated access privileges as fishery management tools; and support 
the President's overall goal of enhancing conservation of marine 
mammals, sharks and sea turtles, which are species that are of special 
concern and that face a variety of threats from human actives.
At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the 
identified Regulatory Plan actions as the majority of these actions are 
currently under development. For the one action where an economic 
analysis has been completed (right whale ship collision rule), NOAA 
anticipates the costs associated with the rule could be as much as $116 
million.
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, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly 
            emerging countries develop effective export control 
            systems. The effectiveness of U.S. export controls can be 
            severely undercut if ``rogue states'' or terrorists gain 
            access to sensitive goods and technology from other 
            supplier countries.
 Working with former defense plants in the Newly Independent 
            States to help make a successful transition to profitable 
            and peaceful civilian endeavors. This involves helping 
            remove unnecessary obstacles to trade and investment and 
            identifying opportunities for joint ventures with U.S. 
            companies.
 Assisting U.S. defense enterprises to meet the challenge of 
            the reduction in defense spending by converting to civilian 
            production and by developing export markets. This work 
            assists in maintaining our defense industrial base as well 
            as preserving jobs for U.S. workers.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




29. PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAM 
PROVISIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION 
ACT OF 2006

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1801 et seq.


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 600


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will provide regions with interpretive guidance on the use of 
Limited Access Privilege Programs as fishery management tools. The 
guidance is intended to assist the fishery management councils and NMFS 
regional offices in developing and implementing LAPPS.


Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to proposed this rulemaking to 
create national guidance for the new Limited Access Privilege Program 
(LAPP) provisions found in section 303(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the

[[Page 69789]]

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 
Act of 2006 (MSRA). The LAPP provisions provide new incentive-based 
options for fisheries management. NMFS has received numerous requests 
from constituent groups, Regional Fishery Management Councils 
(Councils), and Congress to develop such guidance. This guidance will 
assist Councils develop LAPPs with full consideration of national 
perspectives and concerns.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NMFS is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking 
authority under the MSA. 5 U.S.C. 561, 16 U.S.C. 773, et seq., and 16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


Alternatives:


Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development, 
no alternatives have been formulated or analyzed at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development, 
no analysis has been completed at this time to asses the amount that 
would be saved or imposed as a result of this rule. However, this rule 
does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact threshold and 
thus has not been determined to be economically significant under EO 
12866.


Risks:


Without this rulemaking, there is a risk that new LAPP programs will be 
developed that do not meet the requirements of section 303(A), and 
therefore may detrimentally impact the fish stocks that they are 
designed to manage, the fisheries, or the human environment. Among 
other things, reducing capacity; and promote fishing safety, fishery 
conservation and management, and social and economic benefits. Without 
guidance, LAPP programs may be developed that do not meet these 
requirements. Properly designed LAPPs mitigate environmental risk, 
ensure fair and equitable initial allocations, prevent excessive 
shares, protect the basic cultural and social framework of the 
fisheries and fishing communities, and contribute to public safety and 
economic prosperity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Alan Risenhoover
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Room 13362
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2334
RIN: 0648-AV48
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA



30.  CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED 
IN IUU FISHING OR BYCATCH OF PROTECTED LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1801 et seq; 16 USC 1826d to 1826k


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 300


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, January 12, 2009, Identification of nations whose 
vessels are engaged (or have been engaged in) illegal, unreported or 
unregulated fishing.


Abstract:


The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is establishing a process 
of identification and certification to address Illegal, Unreported, or 
Unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in 
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have 
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine 
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress, as 
required under section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. NMFS would 
subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate 
corrective action with respect to the activities of its fishing 
vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.


Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes regulations to set forth 
identification and certification procedures for nations whose vessels 
engage in illgeal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities 
or bycatch of protected living marine resources pursuant to the High 
Seas Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act). 
Specifically, the Moratorium Protection Act requires the Secretary of 
Commerce to identify in a biennial report to Congress those foreign 
nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU fishing or fishing that 
results in bycatch of protected living marine resources. The Moratorium 
Protection Act also requires the establishment of procedures to certify 
whether nations identified in the biennial report are taking 
appropriate corrective actions to address IUU fishing or bycatch of 
protected living marine resources by fishing vessels of that nation. 
Based upon the outcome of the certification procedures developed in 
this rulemaking, nations could be subject to import prohibitions on 
certain fisheries products and other measures under the authority 
provided in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act if the are 
not positively certified by the Secretary of Commerce.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking 
authority under sections 609 and 610 of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826j-k), as amended by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 
Act.


Alternatives:


NMFS is currently in the process of developing alternatives, and will 
provide this information at a later date.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because this rule is under development, NMFS does not currently have 
estimates of the amount of product that is imported into the United 
States from other nations whose vessels are engaged in illegal, 
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing or bycatch of protected 
living marine resources. Therefore, quantification of the economic 
impacts of this rulemaking is not possible at this time. This 
rulemaking does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact 
threshold and thus has not been

[[Page 69790]]

determined to be economically significant under EO 12866.


Risks:


The risks associated with not pursuing the proposed rulemaking include 
allowing IUU fishing activities and/or bycatch of protected living 
marine resources by foreign vessels to continue without an effective 
tool to aid in combating such activities.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/11/07                    72 FR 32052
ANPRM Comment Period End        07/26/07
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dr. Rebecca Lent
Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
501 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Phone: 562 980-4001
RIN: 0648-AV51
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA



31.  GUIDANCE FOR ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS (ACLS) AND ACCOUNTABILITY 
MEASURES (AMS) TO END OVERFISHING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1853


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 600.310


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 104(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), requires that in fishing 
year 2010, for fisheries determined by the Secretary to be subject to 
overfishing, and in fishing year 2011, for all other fisheries, that 
fishery management plans establish ACLs, including regulations and 
annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur 
in a fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.


The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to prepare guidance on 
how to establish adequate ACLs and AMs by revising its National 
Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310. This is because NS1 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that ``Conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States 
fishing industry.''


Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is developing guidance for ending 
overfishing and rebuilding overfished fish stocks. NMFS takes this 
action to ensure that fish stocks managed by Federal fishery management 
plans (FMPs) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) implement annual catch limits 
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to ensure that overfishing is 
prevented. ACLs and AMs are required by fishing year 2010, for all 
stocks undergoing overfishing, and by 2011, for all stocks.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to the MSRA of 2006 (P.L. 
109-479). This includes a new required provision that any FMP shall 
``establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan 
(including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual 
specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the 
fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.'' Provisions and 
guidance related to overfishing best fit under the current National 
Standard 1 which states: ``Conservation and management measures shall 
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 
yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.''


Alternatives:


NMFS is currently in the process of developing alternatives, and will 
provide more complete information at a later date. Preliminary 
alternatives outlined in the Notice of Intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement include no action, developing 
performance standards that ACLs and AMs must meet but do not provide 
guidance on specific mechanisms, and finally develop ACL and AM 
guidelines that provide performance standards that ACLs must meet.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact 
threshold and thus has not been determined to be economically 
significant under EO 12866. Specific benefits and costs from having ACL 
and AM mechanisms and actual ACLs and AMs for various fisheries will 
not be known until ACLs and AMs are implemented in 2010, for stocks 
undergoing overfishing, and by 2011, for all stocks. Regional Fishery 
Management Councils, and NMFS, in the case of Atlantic highly migratory 
species, will perform environmental and socioeconomic analyses to 
describe specific effects for their fisheries once they determine what 
ACLs and AMs are needed for each stock. In general, ending overfishing 
immediately, rather than allowing it to continue would reduce short-
term revenues for a brief period, but increase revenues at a 
sustainable level for the fishery earlier.


Risks:


Overfishing still occurs at various levels in 48 fisheries in U.S. 
waters, although NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils have 
made significant improvements in recent years. A priority in the MSRA 
is to strengthen the Act to ensure an end to overfishing. Without this 
rulemaking, there is a risk that there will be more instances of 
overfishing, which would delay rebuilding. By implementing ACLs and 
AMs, mechanisms will be in place to address overfishing more quickly, 
thus ensuring the timely rebuilding of overfished stocks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 69791]]

Agency Contact:
Alan Risenhoover
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Room 13362
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2334
RIN: 0648-AV60
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




32. RIGHT WHALE SHIP STRIKE REDUCTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1361


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 224


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations would establish speed restrictions to reduce the 
likelihood of North Atlantic right whale mortality as a result of 
collisions with vessels. Restrictions would be limited to areas and 
times when North Atlantic right whales and ships overlap to reduce the 
likelihood of ship strikes to the extent practicable.


Statement of Need:


The North Atlantic right whale population is depleted from past levels. 
Collisions with vessels are the greatest known human threat to right 
whales. NMFS is required under the ESA and MMPA to develop actions to 
recover this species. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) proposed to establish speed restrictions on 
vessels 65 ft (19.8m) or greater in overall length in certain locations 
and at certain times of the year along the East Coast of the United 
States to reduce this threat. The purpose of these proposed regulatory 
measures is to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to 
endangered North Atlantic right whales that result from collisions with 
ships.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NOAA proposed these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking authority 
under Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 
1382(a)), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 11(f) (16 U.S.C. 
1540(f)). These proposed regulations also are consistent with the 
purpose of the ESA ``to provide a program for the conservation of [. . 
.] endangered species'' and ``the policy of Congress that all Federal 
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species [. . 
.] and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes 
of [the ESA].'' 16 U.S.C. 1531(b),(c).


Alternatives:


NMFS identified five alternatives to the proposed action. Alternative 1 
is No Action (Status Quo) in which NMFS would continue to implement 
existing measures and programs, largely nonregulatory, to reduce the 
likelihood of mortality from ship strikes. Alternative 2 includes all 
elements of Alternative 1 and involves use of Dynamically Managed Areas 
(DMA), which consists of certain vessel speed restrictions applying 
only when and where right whale sightings occur. Alternative 3 is 
vessel speed restrictions in designated areas. It includes all elements 
of Alternative 1 and implements large scale speed restrictions 
throughout the range of North Atlantic right whales. Alternative 4 is 
the use of recommended shipping routes. It includes all the elements of 
Alternative 1 and relies on altering some current vessel patterns to 
move vessels away from areas where whales are known to congregate. 
Alternative 5 is a combination that includes all elements of 
Alternatives 1 to 4. Alternative 6 (the proposed alternative) includes 
a combination of operational measures (routing measures and speed 
restrictions). The principal difference between Alternatives 5 and 6 is 
that Alternative 6 does not include large scale speed restrictions (as 
identified in Alternative 3) but instead relies on speed restrictions 
in much smaller Seasonally Managed Areas.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Benefits:


The benefits of effective measures to reduce the risk of right whale 
mortality caused by ship strikes are expected to be considerable. 
Because ship strikes are the human activity that pose the greatest 
known threat to right whales, adopting effective measures to reduce the 
incidences of ship strikes will aid in the recovery of this highly 
endangered species. However, monetary estimates of these benefits are 
currently unavailable; therefore, the discussion of these benefits 
specific to right whales is descriptive.


Costs:


The estimated costs associated with the speed restrictions are being 
analyzed and will be provided in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement and in the accompanying Economic Analysis.


Risks:


The North Atlantic right whale is in danger of extinction. Absent 
effective action to reduce fatal ship strikes and other sources of 
mortality and injuries caused by human activity, the North Atlantic 
right whale population faces a risk of continued decline.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/01/04                    69 FR 30857
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/09/04                    69 FR 41446
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    09/13/04                    69 FR 55135
NPRM                            06/26/06                    71 FR 36299
Comment Period Extended         08/14/06                    71 FR 46440
NPRM Comment Period End         08/25/06
Comment Period End              10/05/06
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Public Compliance Cost:
Initial Cost: $0
Yearly Recurring Cost: $116,000,000
Base Year for Dollar Estimates: 2005

URL For More Information:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr2

[[Page 69792]]

Agency Contact:
James H. Lecky
Director, Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2332
RIN: 0648-AS36
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-S

[[Page 69793]]




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal Department 
consisting of three Military Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 9 
Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and 11 DoD Field 
Activities. It has over 1,365,000 military personnel and 637,000 
civilians assigned as of May 31, 2007, and over 200 large and medium 
installations in the continental United States, U. S. territories, and 
foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of 
DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, 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 DoD 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 effect 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 affected by its 
regulations as well.
Overall Priorities
The Department needs to function at a reasonable cost, while ensuring 
that it does not impose ineffective and unnecessarily burdensome 
regulations on the public. The rulemaking process should be responsive, 
efficient, cost-effective, and both fair and perceived as fair. This is 
being done in DoD while 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, 
fully incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and 
objectives under Executive Order 12866.
Administration Priorities:
1. Rulemakings that Support the Administration's Regulation Agenda to 
            Streamline Regulations and Reporting Requirements
The Department plans to:
 Direct use of electronic subcontracting and reporting system 
            for both the summary and individual subcontract reporting, 
            in conjunction with and as part of the integration with 
            Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).
 Require the processing of all invoices and acceptance reports 
            and other supporting payment documentation electronically 
            through Wide Area Workflow.
 Require contractors to provide item unique identification 
            (IUID) data electronically in the IUID Registry for all DoD 
            personal property in possession of the contractor. Simplify 
            other Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
            (DFARS) regulations relating to acquisition of Government 
            property, consistent with the recent significant revisions 
            to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45.
 Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of multi-year 
            acquisitions.
 Simplify and clarify the DFARS regulations on patents, data 
            and copyrights, dramatically reducing the amount of 
            regulatory text and the number of required clauses.
 Waive specialty metals restrictions at 10 U.S.C. 2533b for the 
            acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.
2. Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
Of interest to Small Businesses are regulations to:
 Revise the FAR to clarify the relationship among small 
            business programs.
 Implement the Small Business Administration regulation 
            requiring re-representation of size status under certain 
            circumstances.
 Provide an increased claim threshold for small business 
            concerns to appeal a contracting officer's decision under 
            small claim procedures of the agency board of contract 
            appeals, in accordance with Section 857 of the Fiscal Year 
            2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
 Amend the FAR to implement changes in the HUBZone Program, in 
            accordance with Small Business Administration regulations.
3. 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.
 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 DoD Priorities:
For this Regulatory Plan, there are four 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, health affairs, and the National Security Personnel 
System. The Department does not anticipate promulgating any 
economically significant regulations.
1. Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[[Page 69794]]

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 proposed rule was published for public comment on March 28, 2006 
(71 FR 15520). The comment period expired on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 
29604). The proposed regulation was 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. The proposed rule takes a 
watershed approach to compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts to 
wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Although the statute 
refers only to wetlands, the proposed rule is broader in scope, and 
addresses compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to other 
aquatic resources, such as streams, in addition to wetlands. Comments 
received in response to the proposed rule have been evaluated, and a 
final rule is being prepared.
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 (ACHP). Those regulations were amended 
on July 6, 2004. The ACHP's regulations allow Federal agencies to 
utilize alternate procedures in lieu of the regulations at 36 CFR part 
800. In 2005 and 2007, the Corps Headquarters issued supplemental 
guidance on compliance with the NHPA while efforts were underway to 
revise or replace Appendix C. 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 held 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. The Corps also held 
additional focus group meetings facilitated by our eight division 
offices to gather input from federally recognized tribes on their 
recommendations concerning how government-to-government consultation 
could occur. After reviewing those recommendations, the Corps developed 
a consultation plan, and is currently in the process of conducting 
government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes. 
Also, our division offices have solicited information on topics that 
any new alternative procedure should address.
2. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues 
to lead Government efforts to:
 Improve the DFARS to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness 
            of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition 
            workforce flexibility to innovate. The DFARS contains only 
            requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR 
            authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and 
            policies/procedures that have a significant impact on 
            contractors, offerors, and/or the public.
 Establish a new restriction on acquisition of specialty metals 
            under 10 U.S.C. 2533b, with new exception for commercially 
            available electronic components and a one-time waiver for 
            items produced, manufactured, or assembled in the U.S. 
            prior to November 16, 2006. Also provides an exception for 
            nonavailability if the specialty metal cannot be obtained 
            when needed and in the required form.
 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 respond to public comments. Implement the DoD Law of 
            War Program, requiring contractors to report violations.
 Coordinate with the Department of State to finalize 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; 
            military exercises designated by the combatant commander; 
            or at a diplomatic or consular mission, when designated by 
            the chief of mission.
 Provide incentives for development and deployment of anti-
            terrorism technologies, in accordance with the DHS 
            regulations on the Safety Act.
 Prohibit trafficking in persons by contractors, contractor 
            employees, and subcontractors.
 Inform potential offerors that export control regulations 
            apply to performance of certain contracts, and the 
            contractor is responsible for compliance with those 
            regulations.
 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 agency's books and records, and properly coordinated 
            with the appropriate Government officials.
 Exempt certain contracts from coverage under the Service 
            Contract Act if certain conditions are met, as specified by 
            the Department of Labor.
 Evaluate the continued need for provisional award fee 
            payments.
 Address quality control in the procurement of ship critical 
            safety items, as required by Section 130 of the Fiscal Year 
            2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
 Provide criteria for the release of supplies by the contractor 
            based on complexity and criticality.
 Require contractors to establish a code of ethics and business 
            conduct, and establish on-going training program and 
            internal control system commensurate with the size of the 
            business.
 Authorize set-asides for awards based on specific geographic 
            areas under the

[[Page 69795]]

            Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
            Act, in order to implement the Local Community Recovery Act 
            of 2006.
3. 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 health care program designed to 
improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery 
system. The program's goal is to increase access to health care 
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
The TRICARE Management Activity plans to submit the following rules:
 Final rule concerning Certain Survivors of Deceased Active 
            Duty Members and Adoption Intermediaries. The rule 
            addresses two provisions of the National Defense 
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (NDAA-06), Pub. L. 
            109-163. For certain dependents of Active Duty Service 
            Members (ADSM) who die while on active duty for more than 
            30 days, Section 715 of the NDAA-06 extends the time frame 
            for which they shall receive TRICARE medical benefits at 
            active duty dependent payment rates. Second, Section 592 
            modifies the requirement for intermediaries who provide 
            adoption placements. The economic impact of this rule is 
            estimated to be less than $100 million. The interim final 
            rule was published January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2444). Comment 
            period ended March 20, 2007.
 Proposed rule on TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System 
            (OPPS). The rule implements a prospective payment system 
            for hospital outpatient services similar to that furnished 
            to Medicare beneficiaries, as set forth in section 1833(t) 
            of the Social Security Act. The rule also recognizes 
            applicable statutory requirements and changes arising from 
            Medicare's continuing experience with its system, including 
            certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription 
            Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. While 
            TRICARE intends to remain as true as possible to Medicare's 
            basic OPPS methodology (i.e., adoption and updating of the 
            Medicare data elements used in calculating the prospective 
            payment amounts), there will be some significant deviations 
            required to accommodate the uniqueness of the TRICARE 
            program. These deviations have been designed to accommodate 
            existing TRICARE benefit structure and claims processing 
            procedures implemented under the TRICARE Next Generation 
            Contracts (T-NEX) while at the same time eliminating any 
            undue financial burden to TRICARE Prime, Extra and Standard 
            beneficiary populations. The economic impact of this rule 
            is estimated to be less than $100 million.
 It is anticipated that an interim final rule will be required 
            to be promulgated in order to implement a provision of the 
            National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to 
            expand the TRICARE Reserve Select program to allow all 
            members of the Selected Reserve to purchase their health 
            care through the Military Health System at the same low 
            cost, regardless of the member's duty status. The economic 
            impact of this rule is estimated to be less than $100 
            million.
4. National Security Personnel System, Department of Defense
 On November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66115-66164), the Department of Defense 
(DoD) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued final 
regulations to establish the National Security Personnel System, a DoD 
human resources management system authorized by the National Defense 
Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003). These 
regulations govern basic pay, staffing, classification, performance 
management, labor relations, adverse actions, and employee appeals. 
These regulations are designed to ensure that the DoD's human resources 
management and labor relations systems align with its critical mission 
requirements and protect the civil service rights of its employees.
 Subsequent litigation and potential legislation present the 
possibility that the NSPS regulation will require revision in the 
upcoming year. DoD and OPM will consider several alternative approaches 
to address the final outcomes by either the courts or new legislation. 
A proposed rule may be published within 90 days of the final court 
decision or enactment of legislation. This could result in publication 
as early as January 2008.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S

[[Page 69796]]




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 and to help ensure that 
all Americans receive a quality education. Our roles include providing 
leadership and financial assistance for education to agencies, 
institutions, and individuals in situations in which there is a 
national interest, such as in helping all students to reach grade-level 
standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; monitoring and 
enforcing the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in programs 
and activities that receive Federal financial assistance; supporting 
research, evaluation, and dissemination of findings to improve the 
quality of education; and assisting students in their pursuit of 
postsecondary education.
We administer programs that affect nearly every American during his or 
her life. For the 2007-2008 school year, we expect about 50 million 
students to attend some 97,000 elementary and secondary schools in 
approximately 14,000 public school districts, and about 17.9 million 
students to enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools.
We have worked effectively with a broad range of interested parties and 
the general public to develop regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, and approaches to compliance. In developing and 
implementing regulations, we are committed to working closely with 
affected persons and groups, including parents, students, and 
educators; State, local, and tribal governments; and 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 public 
participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of 
transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies. 
If we determine that the development of regulations is necessary, we 
seek public participation at all key stages in the rulemaking process. 
We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations 
through the Internet or by regular mail.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal 
Docketing Management System (FDMS), a new, electronic single 
Governmentwide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the 
public to search, read, download, and submit comments on different 
types of Federal regulatory documents. In the case of our Department, 
this system provides the public with the opportunity to file a comment 
electronically on any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final 
regulations open for comment, as well as read and print any supporting 
regulatory documents. In addition, FDMS enables the public to read 
comments filed by other members of the public during the public comment 
period and to respond to those comments.
We are continuing our efforts to streamline information collections, 
reduce the burden on information providers involved in our programs, 
and make information maintained by us easily accessible to the public.
No Child Left Behind
We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and to building on the results of its 
most recent reauthorization through the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001. No Child Left Behind has increased accountability for States, 
school districts, and schools; provided greater choice for parents and 
students, particularly those students attending low-performing schools; 
provided more flexibility for States and local educational agencies in 
the use of Federal education dollars; and placed a stronger emphasis on 
using scientifically based research to guide instruction, especially in 
reading for our youngest children. The major principles of No Child 
Left Behind are: the establishment of meaningful State academic content 
and academic achievement standards and aligned assessments to measure 
progress toward meeting these standards; school and district 
accountability for meeting the standards; having every child performing 
at or above grade level by 2014; conducting annual assessments and 
disaggregating data to identify and close the achievement gap; having 
highly qualified teachers provide instruction in core academic subjects 
in every classroom; and providing options for parents of students in 
schools that do not make progress in meeting State standards, including 
public school choice and free tutoring. The Administration will 
continue to work with Congress to give educators, policymakers, and 
parents the tools to get the job done, without straying from these core 
principles.
To make No Child Left Behind even more effective, we are proposing 
greater flexibility and other improvements that will help each State 
meet the goal of having all children at grade-level proficiency, as 
defined by the State. To ensure students' success, we will build on the 
results of No Child Left Behind by promoting a stronger effort to close 
the achievement gap through high State standards and accountability, by 
giving States flexibility and new tools to measure achievement more 
accurately and to restructure chronically underperforming schools, and 
by giving families more options. We also will promote greater use of 
growth models in State accountability systems as one way to provide 
better measurement. Growth models allow States to measure individual 
students' progress over time, giving schools credit for improvement 
from year to year and providing another way to show whether achievement 
gaps are closing.
Additionally, our goals for No Child Left Behind are: (1) to give 
States and districts assistance in bringing about meaningful high 
school reform; and (2) to assist States in improving the quality of 
secondary education and ensuring that every student not only graduates 
from high school on time, but also graduates prepared to enter college 
or the 21st-century workforce with the skills vital for success. Our 
proposals include a more accurate graduation rate calculation; the 
development by 2010-11 of course-level academic standards for two years 
of high school English and math, and by 2012-13 of assessments aligned 
with these standards; the promotion of rigorous high school coursework; 
increased funding for high schools that serve low-income students; and 
meeting the need for additional teachers of math, science, and other 
subjects through a new Adjunct Teacher Corps.
As necessary, we intend to amend current regulations to accommodate 
these efforts to strengthen No Child Left Behind.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 
(Pub. L. 108-446) made substantial changes to the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition to final regulations 
designed to improve implementation of the education of children with 
disabilities program (including preschool services) under part B of 
IDEA that were published in August 2006 (71 FR

[[Page 69797]]

46540), we plan to issue later this year a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that would address issues in part B that were not covered by 
those final regulations. Also, in May 2007 we issued proposed 
regulations to implement changes to the part C program--the early 
intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We 
hope to publish final regulations for this program in the third quarter 
of 2008.
Higher Education
This fall, the Department published final regulations affecting the 
Federal student aid programs, including regulations for the Academic 
Competitiveness Grant and National Science and Mathematics Access to 
Retain Talent Grant programs, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) 
program, the Federal Perkins Loan program, and the William D. Ford 
Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program. These final regulations will 
take effect on July 1, 2008, and accordingly we will be working over 
the next year toward their implementation.
The recently-enacted College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 
(CCRAA), Pub. L. 110-84, amended certain provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (HEA) on which the Department plans to regulate 
in 2008. The areas for regulation would include the new Teacher 
Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant 
program and issues pertaining to the FFEL and Direct Loan programs. We 
also note that there are other bills pending in Congress to reauthorize 
or otherwise amend the HEA. Any regulatory activity resulting from 
amendments to the HEA would need to balance reduction in burden on 
program participants, especially students, with the need to adequately 
safeguard taxpayers' funds. 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.
Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress 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 any changes to these laws 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. 
Changes to our regulations may be necessary as a result of the 
reauthorization of these two statutes.
During the coming year, other regulations may be necessitated by 
legislation or programmatic experience. In developing and promulgating 
any additional regulations we will be guided by the following 
Principles for Regulating:
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. We will regulate only if absolutely 
necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least 
burdensome way possible.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider:
 Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and 
            equality of opportunity in education.
 Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without 
            regulation.
 Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding 
            interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
 Whether entities or situations to be regulated are so diverse 
            that a uniform approach through regulation does more harm 
            than good.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following 
principles:
 Regulate no more than necessary.
 Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple 
            approaches to meeting statutory requirements when possible.
 Encourage federally funded activities to be coordinated with 
            State and local reform activities.
 Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
 Establish performance objectives rather than specify 
            compliance behavior to the extent possible.
 Encourage flexibility to the extent possible so institutional 
            forces and incentives achieve desired results.
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




33.  TITLE IV OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


20 USC 1098a


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary proposes regulations to implement provisions of the 
recently-enacted College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA), 
Pub. L. 110-84, which amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. These 
regulations would address issues relating to the new TEACH Grant 
program created by the CCRAA and regulatory changes to the Federal 
Family Education Loan Program and William D. Ford Direct Loan Program 
resulting from the CCRAA.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are needed to implement the provisions of the College 
Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-84, which amended 
the Higher Education Act of 1965.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are proposed to implement provisions of the College 
Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub L. 110-84.


Alternatives:


To be identified.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.

[[Page 69798]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John A. Kolotos
Program Specialist
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-8502
Phone: 202 502-7762
RIN: 1840-AC93
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S

[[Page 69799]]




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, energy efficiency, environmental 
remediation, and energy research. The Department's mission is to:
 Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound 
            production and distribution of energy;
 Foster energy efficiency and 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 premier 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 fulfill the Department's 
commitment to meeting deadlines for issuance of energy conservation 
standards and related test procedures. The Regulatory Plan and Unified 
Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut 
costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the 
public.
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment
On January 31, 2006, the Department released a schedule for setting new 
appliance efficiency standards that will save American consumers 
billions of dollars in energy costs. The five-year plan outlines how 
DOE will address the appliance standards rulemaking backlog and meet 
the statutory requirements established in the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (EPCA) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). 
EPCA requires DOE to set appliance efficiency standards at levels that 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Standards already 
in place for residential products are expected to save consumers nearly 
$93 billion by 2020, and to save enough energy to operate all U.S. 
homes for approximately two years.
The five-year plan, which was developed considering the public comments 
received on the appliance standards program, provides for the issuance 
of one rulemaking for each of the 18 products in the backlog. The plan 
also provides for setting appliance standards for products required 
under EPACT 2005. The Department is aggressively implementing process 
improvements to speed up the development and issuance of appliance 
standards rules.
The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the 
Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released 
January 31, 2006. The report is posted at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance--standards/2006--schedule--setting.html. The report 
identifies all products for which DOE has missed the deadlines 
established in EPCA (42 U.S.C. Sec.  6291 et seq.). It also describes 
the reasons for such delays and the Department's plan for expeditiously 
prescribing new or amended standards. The latest semi-annual update to 
the report was released in August 2007. Information and timetables 
concerning these actions can also be found in the Department's 
Regulatory Agenda, which is posted online at: www.reginfo.gov.
Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits
All of the regulatory actions included in this Regulatory Plan are in 
the early stages of rulemaking, and the Department has not yet proposed 
candidate standards levels for the covered products or equipment. 
Consequently, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate 
costs and benefits.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




34. ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC AND GAS 
RANGES AND OVENS AND MICROWAVE OVENS, DISHWASHERS, DEHUMIDIFIERS, AND 
COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6295(g) to (h)(cc); 42 USC 6313(e)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, March 31, 2009.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for most types of major 
residential appliances, as well as certain commercial appliances. The 
statute generally requires DOE to undertake two subsequent rulemakings 
to determine whether the existing standard for a covered product should 
be amended. Through this combined rulemaking, the Department is 
evaluating potential amendments to update the current energy efficiency 
standards for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens (including 
a new provision specific to microwave ovens) and dishwashers. The 
Department is also considering establishing initial energy efficiency 
standards for dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers, as required 
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which further amended EPCA.


Statement of Need:


EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which 
has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from 
the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


EPCA establishes initial energy efficiency standards for most types of 
major residential appliances and certain commercial equipment. EPCA 
generally requires DOE to subsequently undertake rulemaking, at 
specified

[[Page 69800]]

times, to determine whether the standard for a covered product should 
be made more stringent. Pursuant to EPCA, the Department has 
established energy efficiency standards for residential electric and 
gas ranges and ovens, as well as dishwashers. In addition, the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 amended EPCA to authorize the Department to set 
standards for energy (and water, where appropriate) used in the 
operation of dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers.


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 the criteria 
specified by statute.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been 
established because the Department is still in the early stages of 
rulemaking and has not yet determined candidate standard levels for 
these products. As a general matter, in setting any efficiency standard 
different than those set by statute, the Secretary must first determine 
that such standard is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/00/07
NPRM                            07/00/08
Final Action                    03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


Merged dishwashers from RIN 1904-AA89 and added residential 
dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers.


Agency Contact:
Stephen Witkowski
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7463
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 1904-AA89
RIN: 1904-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--EE

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




35. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS 
AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6313(a)(6)(A)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, September 30, 2008.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides that if the 
energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 for certain 
commercial and industrial equipment are amended after specified dates, 
the Department of Energy (DOE) must establish an amended uniform 
national standard for such equipment at the new minimum level in 
Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines that a more stringent 
standard is technologically feasible and economically justified and 
would result in significant additional energy conservation. This 
rulemaking was initiated to consider whether DOE should adopt amended 
ASHRAE/IESNA efficiency levels for certain commercial air conditioners 
and heat pumps. On March 7, 2007, DOE published a final rule addressing 
standards for five categories of products, but decided to consider if 
evidence supported higher standards for packaged terminal air 
conditioners and heat pumps (PTAC/PTHP). As required by EPCA, DOE has 
undertaken this further rulemaking to determine standards for packaged 
terminal air conditioners and heat pumps.


Statement of Need:


EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which 
has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from 
the market


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides that if the 
energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 for certain 
commercial and industrial equipment are amended after specified dates, 
the Department of Energy (DOE) must establish an amended uniform 
national standard for such equipment at the new minimum level in 
Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines that a more stringent 
standard is technologically feasible and economically justified and 
would result in significant additional energy conservation. This 
rulemaking was initiated to consider whether DOE should adopt amended 
ASHRAE/IESNA efficiency levels for certain commercial air conditioners 
and heat pumps. On March 7, 2007, DOE published a final rule addressing 
standards for five categories of products, but decided to consider if 
evidence supported higher standards for packaged terminal air 
conditioners and heat pumps. As required by EPCA, DOE has undertaken 
this further rulemaking to determine standards for packaged terminal 
air conditioners and heat pumps.


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 the criteria 
specified by statute.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been 
established because the Department is still in the early stages of 
rulemaking and has not yet determined candidate standard levels for 
these products. As a general matter, in setting any efficiency standard 
different than those set by statute, the Secretary must first determine 
that such standard is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified.

[[Page 69801]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Availabilitiy         03/13/06                    71 FR 12634
Comment Period End              04/27/06
Final Rule (except PTAC/
    PTHP)                       03/07/07                    72 FR 10038
NPRM (PTAC/PTHP)                01/00/08
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Wesley Anderson
Mechanical Engineer
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington , DC 20585
Phone: 202-586-7335
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 1904-AB16, Merged with 1904-AB17
RIN: 1904-AB44
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--EE



36. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6313(c)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2009.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amendments to the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) require that DOE establish standards 
for ice cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-
condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.


Statement of Need:


EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which 
has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from 
the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA authorize DOE to establish energy 
conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.


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 the criteria 
specified by statute.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been 
established because the Department is still in the early stages of 
rulemaking and has not yet determined candidate standard levels for 
these products. As a general matter, in setting any efficiency standard 
different than those set by statute, the Secretary must first determine 
that such standard is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           07/26/07                    72 FR 41162
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/09/07
NPRM                            05/00/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Charles Llenza
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-2192
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB59
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S

[[Page 69802]]




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts a broad 
range of programs mandated by Congress to protect and promote the 
health and well-being of all Americans, but focused especially on those 
least able to help themselves. HHS responsibilities include: Medicare, 
Medicaid, support for public health preparedness, biomedical research, 
substance abuse and mental health treatment and prevention, assurance 
of safe and effective drugs and other medical products, food safety, 
financial assistance to low income families, Head Start, services to 
older Americans, and direct health services delivery.
Since assuming the leadership of HHS, Secretary Michael O. Leavitt has 
consistently sought to make transparent his approach to overseeing the 
Department's programs. His current statement of the Department's 
priorities is available for public review at http://www.hhs.gov/
secretary/priorities/index.html. The regulatory actions noted below 
reflect this policy framework.
Health Information Technology
The Secretary's strategy for promoting improvements in the Nation's 
health sector stresses maximum use of electronic information 
technology. The FY 2008 Regulatory Plan accordingly includes a notice 
of proposed rulemaking to require that clinical study data be provided 
to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in electronic format, using 
standard data structures, terminology, and code sets. The change would 
further increase the efficiency of the agency's review processes, 
speeding up the availability of new therapies. Additionally, the Plan 
includes: proposed actions to require medical-device firms to register 
electronically with the FDA, as well as to report post-marketing 
information to the agency electronically; and a proposal for the 
adoption of final standards for the electronic transmission of basic 
prescription drug data.
Medicare Modernization
The Secretary's statement of priorities includes a focus on Medicare 
modernization. The Regulatory Plan, accordingly, highlights:
 final rules to update the requirements that end-stage-renal 
            disease and hospice facilities must meet to participate in 
            the Medicare program;
 final rules establishing annual adjustments in payment amounts 
            under Medicare for physicians' services and for hospital 
            outpatient services for calendar year 2009.
Medicare Part D
The Secretary believes that every senior must have access to affordable 
prescription drugs, and that a reinforced regulatory framework for 
implementing the Medicare prescription drug benefit can further connect 
beneficiaries with the Part D program. The Plan accordingly includes a 
proposal to establish additional guidance for expediting the program's 
appeal processes.
Disease Prevention
Also included among the Secretary's priorities is an emphasis on 
disease prevention and the need for individual responsibility for 
personal wellness. Three actions in the Plan reflect this concern:
 a final rule clarifying an exemptions process for the recently 
            established good manufacturing practices for the dietary-
            supplement products favored by many Americans;
 a proposal to modify prescription drug labeling so that health 
            care providers may better understand and communicate to 
            their patients the risks and benefits associated with the 
            use of prescribed medicines during pregnancy and lactation, 
            and
 a proposal to amend existing regulations governing 
            investigational new drugs -- the rule would delineate new 
            avenues of access for patients to obtain investigational 
            drugs for treatment use.
Food Safety
The Secretary recently chaired the Interagency Working Group on Import 
Safety, established by a July 2007 Executive Order requiring that the 
Executive branch take all appropriate steps to promote the safety of 
imported products. Reflecting the importance of this subject, the 
Regulatory Plan includes:
 a proposal to require owners or consignees to label imported 
            food that has previously been refused entry into the United 
            States. This action would prevent the introduction of 
            unsafe food and facilitate the examination of imported 
            food; and
 a final rule completing the rulemaking process requiring that 
            the Food and Drug Administration be notified prior to the 
            entry of imported food into the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




37. CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN QUARANTINE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 70 to 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


By statute, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has broad 
authority to prevent introduction, transmission, and spread of 
communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and 
from one State or possession into another. Quarantine regulations are 
divided into two parts: Part 71 dealing with foreign arrivals and part 
70 dealing with interstate matters. The Secretary has delegated the 
authority to prevent the introduction of diseases from foreign 
countries to the Director, CDC. CDC maintains quarantine stations at 20 
ports of entry staffed with medical and public health officers who 
respond to reports of diseases from carriers. According to the 
statutory scheme, the President determines through Executive order 
which diseases may subject individuals to quarantine. The current 
disease list, which was last updated in April 2005, includes cholera, 
diphtheria, tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral 
hemorrhagic fevers, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and 
influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are 
causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.


Statement of Need:


The quarantine or isolation of persons believed to be infected with or 
exposed

[[Page 69803]]

to a communicable disease are public health prevention measures that 
have been used effectively to contain the spread of disease. As 
diseases evolve due to natural occurrences or man-made events, it is 
important to ensure that prevention procedures reflect new threats and 
uniform ways to contain them. Recent experiences with emerging 
infectious diseases such as West Nile Virus, SARS, and monkeypox have 
illustrated both the rapidity with which disease may spread throughout 
the world and the impact that communicable diseases, when left 
unchecked, may have on the global economy. Stopping an outbreak--
whether it is naturally occurring or intentionally caused--requires the 
use of the most rapid and effective public health tools available. Two 
of these tools are isolation and quarantine. Isolation refers to the 
separation or restriction of movement of ill persons with an infectious 
disease in order to prevent transmission to those who are not ill. 
Quarantine refers to the separation and restriction of movement of 
persons who, while not yet ill, have been exposed to an infectious 
agent and therefore may become infectious. Isolation and quarantine of 
ill and exposed persons may be one of the best initial strategies to 
prevent the uncontrolled spread of highly dangerous biologic agents--
especially when combined with other health strategies such as 
vaccination, prophylactic drug treatment, and other appropriate 
infection control measures.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations would be proposed under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 
198, 231, 2001; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264 to 271. In addition, section 361(b) 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264(b)) authorizes the 
``apprehension, detention, or conditional release'' of persons to 
prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of specified 
communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and 
from one State or possession into another. Among other public health 
powers, the lawful ability to inspect property, to medically examine 
and monitor persons, and to detain or quarantine exists in current 
regulations. Acknowledging the critical importance of protecting the 
public's health, long-standing court decisions uphold the ability of 
Congress and State legislatures to enact quarantine and other public 
health laws and to have them executed by public health officials.


Alternatives:


These regulations are necessary to ensure that HHS has the tools it 
needs to respond to public health emergencies and disease threats. Any 
less stringent alternatives would prevent the Department from the most 
effective possible pursuit of this objective.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The primary cost impact of the proposed rule would be data collection, 
transmission, storage and retrieval, and costs associated with contact 
tracing. The benefits of this rule will offer procedures that more 
completely describe the 21st century implementation of disease 
containment measures such as isolation and quarantine. These procedures 
are expected to expedite and improve CDC operations by allowing 
immediate medical follow-up of potentially infected passengers and 
their contacts. The benefits of the rule would be measured in terms of 
the number of deaths and illnesses prevented by rapid intervention.


Risks:


Failure to move forward with this rulemaking would hinder the Nation's 
ability to use the most rapid and effective public health tools 
available when responding to public health emergencies and disease 
threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/30/05                    70 FR 71892
Final Action                    07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ram Koppaka M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
MS-E-03
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404 498-2308
RIN: 0920-AA12
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




38. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF DATA FROM STUDIES EVALUATING HUMAN DRUGS 
AND BIOLOGICS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 355; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 262


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 314.50; 21 CFR 601.12; 21 CFR 314.94; 21 CFR 314.96


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration is proposing to amend the regulations 
governing the format in which clinical study data and bioequivalence 
data are required to be submitted for new drug applications (NDAs), 
biological license applications (BLAs), and abbreviated new drug 
applications (ANDAs). The proposal would revise our regulations to 
require that data submitted for NDAs, BLAs, and ANDAs, and their 
supplements and amendments, be provided in an electronic format that 
FDA can process, review, and archive. The proposal would also require 
that FDA periodically issue guidance on the use of standardized data 
structure, terminology, and code sets (e.g., the Study Data Tabulation 
Model (SDTM) developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards 
Consortium) to allow for more efficient and comprehensive data review.


Statement of Need:


Before a drug is approved for marketing, FDA must determine that the 
drug is safe and effective for its intended use. This determination is 
based in part on clinical study data and bioequivalence data that are 
submitted as part of the marketing application. Study data submitted to 
FDA in electronic format have generally been more efficient to process 
and review.


FDA's proposed rule would require the submission of study data in a 
standardized electronic format, and it provides that the specific 
format will be announced in FDA guidance. Electronic submission of 
study data would improve patient safety and

[[Page 69804]]

enhance health care delivery by enabling FDA to process, review, and 
archive data more efficiently. Standardization would also enhance the 
ability to share study data and communicate results. Investigators and 
industry would benefit from the use of standards throughout the 
lifecycle of a study--in data collection, reporting, and analysis. The 
proposal would work in concert with ongoing agency and national 
initiatives to support increased use of electronic technology as a 
means to improve patient safety and enhance health care delivery.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Our legal authority to amend our regulations governing the submission 
and format of clinical study data and bioequivalence data for human 
drugs and biologics derives from sections 505 and 701 of the act 
(U.S.C. 355 and 371) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 262).


Alternatives:


FDA considered issuing a guidance document outlining the electronic 
submission and the standardization of study data, but not requiring 
electronic submission of the data in the standardized format. This 
alternative was rejected because the agency would not fully benefit 
from standardization until it became the industry standard, which could 
take up to 20 years.


We also considered a number of different implementation scenarios, from 
shorter to longer time-periods. The 2-year time-period was selected 
because the agency believes it would provide ample time for applicants 
to comply without too long a delay in the effective date. A longer 
time-period would delay the benefit from the increased efficiencies, 
such as standardization of review tools across applications, and the 
incremental cost savings to industry would be small.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Standardization of clinical data structure, terminology, and code sets 
will increase the efficiency of the agency review process. FDA 
estimates that the costs to industry resulting from the proposal would 
include some one-time costs and possibly some annual recurring costs. 
One-time costs would include, among other things, the cost of 
converting data to standard structures, terminology, and cost sets 
(i.e., purchase of software to convert data); the cost of submitting 
electronic data (i.e., purchase of file transfer programs); and the 
cost of installing and validating the software and training personnel. 
Additional annual recurring costs may result from software purchases 
and licensing agreements for use of proprietary terminologies.


The proposal could result in many long-term benefits for industry, 
including improved patient safety through faster, more efficient, 
comprehensive, and accurate data review, as well as enhanced 
communication among sponsors and clinicians.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Martha Nguyen
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Office of Regulatory Policy
Suite 1101 (HFD-7), 5515 Security Lane
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AC52
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



39. CONTENT AND FORMAT OF LABELING FOR HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND 
BIOLOGICS; REQUIREMENTS FOR PREGNANCY AND LACTATION LABELING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 331; 21 USC 351 to 353; 21 USC 355; 21 USC 358; 21 
USC 360; 21 USC 360b; 21 USC 360gg to 360ss; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 21 
USC 379e; 42 USC 216; 42 USC 241; 42 USC 262; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 201.56; 21 CFR 201.57; 21 CFR 201.80


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


To amend the regulations governing the format and content of labeling 
for human prescription drugs and biological products (21 CFR part 
201.56, 201.57, and 201.80).


Statement of Need:


Under FDA's current regulations, labeling concerning the use of 
prescription drugs in pregnancy uses letter categories (A, B, C, D, X) 
to characterize the risk to the fetus of using the drug during 
pregnancy. Dissatisfaction with the category system has been expressed 
by health care providers, medical organizations, experts in the study 
of birth defects, women's health researchers, and women of childbearing 
age. These stakeholders have expressed the view that the current 
categories are confusing and overly simplistic and thus are not 
adequate to communicate risks effectively. One of the deficiencies of 
the category system is that drugs may be assigned to the same category 
when the severity, incidence, and types of risk are quite different.


Stakeholders consulted through a public hearing, several focus groups, 
and several advisory committees have recommended that FDA replace the 
category system with a concise narrative summarizing a product's risks 
to pregnant women and to women of childbearing age. It has also been 
strongly recommended that pregnancy labeling address the situation 
where a woman has taken drugs before she realizes she is pregnant. The 
labeling that would be required under the proposed rule would be 
responsive to the concerns discussed above, and others that have been 
expressed by critics of the current category system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA has broad authority under sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 
and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 
U.S.C. 321, 331, 351 to 353, 355, and 371) and section 351 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) to help ensure that 
prescription drugs (including biological products that are regulated as 
drugs) are safe and effective for their intended uses. A major part of 
FDA's efforts concerning the safe and effective use of drug products 
involves review, approval, and monitoring of drug labeling. Under 
section 502(f)(1) of the Act, a drug is misbranded unless its

[[Page 69805]]

labeling bears ``adequate directions for use'' or it is exempted from 
this requirement by regulation. Under section 201.100 (21 CFR part 
201.100), a prescription drug is exempted from the requirement in 
section 502(f)(1) of the Act only if, among other things, it contains 
the information required and in the format specified by sections 201.56 
and 201.57.


Under section 502(a) of the Act, a drug product is misbranded if its 
labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Under section 505(d) 
and 505(e) of the Act, FDA must refuse to approve an application or may 
withdraw approval of an application if the labeling for the drug is 
false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the Act 
provides that in determining whether the labeling of a drug is 
misleading, there shall be taken into account not only representations 
or suggestions made in the labeling, but also the extent to which the 
labeling fails to reveal facts that are material in light of such 
representations or material with respect to consequences that may 
result from use of the drug product under the conditions of use 
prescribed in the labeling or under customary conditions of use.


These statutory provisions, combined with section 701(a) of the Act and 
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, clearly authorize FDA to 
publish a proposed rule designed to help ensure that practitioners 
prescribing drugs (including biological products) to pregnant women and 
women of childbearing age would receive information essential to the 
safe and effective use of these drugs.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to the proposal include not amending our existing 
regulation governing the format and content of labeling for human 
prescription drugs and biological products. This alternative is 
inconsistent with widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction with the 
pregnancy labeling provided pursuant to the current regulation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule would impose one-time costs for firms to modify drug 
product labeling and annual costs to print longer labeling. The extent 
of these modifications would depend on whether a product's labeling is 
affected by the physician labeling final rule (PLR) and on the scope of 
the implementation.


The revised format and the information provided in the labeling would 
make it easier for health care providers to understand the risks and 
benefits of drug use during pregnancy and lactation. A better 
understanding of risks and benefits would help women and their health 
care providers make informed decisions about whether or not to use 
drugs during pregnancy and lactation. Labeling under the rule would 
also provide information geared to women who took drugs before they 
knew they were pregnant. Such information may often be reassuring to 
women and their health care providers.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/08

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.


Agency Contact:
Christine F. Rogers
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Suite 1101
5515 Security Lane
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF11
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



40. LABEL REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD THAT HAS BEEN REFUSED ADMISSION INTO THE 
UNITED STATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 1453 to 1455 ; 21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 343; 21 USC 371; 
21 USC 374; 21 USC 381; 42 USC 216; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 1.98


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule would require owners or consignees to label imported 
food that is refused entry into the United States. The label would 
read, ``UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY.'' The proposal would describe the 
label's characteristics (such as its size) and processes for verifying 
that the label has been affixed properly. We are taking this action to 
prevent the introduction of unsafe food into the United States, to 
facilitate the examination of imported food, and to implement section 
308 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) (Pub. L. 107-188).


Statement of Need:


In 1998, the General Accounting Office issued a report titled, ``Food 
Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods Are 
Inconsistent and Unreliable.'' The report stated that some food 
importers evade import controls and are able to introduce contaminated, 
adulterated, or unsafe food into the United States even after FDA 
refused to admit the food and the Customs Service ordered the food to 
be reexported or destroyed.


Additionally, in 1998, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations conducted hearings on the safety of food imports. The 
subcommittee heard testimony about reimporting refused foods through 
another port (a practice known as ``port shopping''). On July 3, 1999, 
then-President Clinton issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury directing them, in 
part, to take all actions available to ``prohibit the reimportation of 
food that has been previously refused admission and has not been 
brought into compliance with United States laws and regulations'' by 
requiring the marking of shipping containers and/or papers of imported 
food that is refused admission for safety reasons.


Consequently, on January 22, 2001, FDA and the Department of the 
Treasury jointly issued a proposed rule (66 FR 6502) that would have 
required that imported food that has been refused admission for safety 
reasons be marked as ``UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY.'' The mark would 
make it easier to detect previously refused food and reduce, if not

[[Page 69806]]

eliminate, ``port shopping.'' However, on June 12, 2002, before FDA and 
Treasury could prescribe a final rule, the Bioterrorism Act became law. 
Section 308(a) of the Bioterrorism Act created a new section 801(n) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to clarify FDA's 
authority to require the owner or consignee of a food that had been 
refused admission into the United States to ``affix to the container of 
the food a label that clearly and conspicuously bears the statement: 
`UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY'.'' Although section 308(c) of the 
Bioterrorism Act stated that ``nothing in this section shall be 
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services or the Secretary of the Treasury to require the marking of 
refused articles of food under any other provision of law,'' the new 
statutory provision differed from the January 22, 2001, proposed rule 
and prompted FDA to withdraw the proposal on August 21, 2002 (67 FR 
54138).


The new proposal would describe the label requirements for imported 
food that has been refused admission into the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 801(a) of the act authorizes FDA to refuse to admit imported 
food if the food has been manufactured, processed, or packed under 
insanitary conditions, is forbidden or restricted in sale in the 
country in which it was produced, or is adulterated or misbranded. 
Additionally, as explained earlier, section 801(n) of the act gives FDA 
express authority to require the owner or consignee of a food that had 
been refused admission into the United States to ``affix to the 
container of the food a label that clearly and conspicuously bears the 
statement: `UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY'.''


Sections 402 and 403 of the act describe when a food is adulterated or 
misbranded, respectively. Section 701(a) of the act authorizes FDA to 
issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the Act, while 
section 701(b) of the act authorizes FDA and the Department of the 
Treasury to jointly prescribe regulations for the efficient enforcement 
of section 801 of the act.


The proposed rule is within FDA's authority at sections 402, 403, 701, 
and 801 of the act. In general, unsafe food is often adulterated under 
section 402 of the act and may also be misbranded under section 403 of 
the act. Requiring a label on refused foods that have been so refused 
will make it easier for FDA to refuse to admit previously refused, 
adulterated, or misbranded food imports into the United States.


Additionally, section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS act) 
authorizes FDA to ``render assistance'' to appropriate health 
authorities in the conduct of or to promote coordination of research, 
investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to 
the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of disease. 
Section 361 of the PHS act authorizes FDA to issue regulations to 
prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable 
diseases into the United States. Affixing a label would alert foreign 
officials to previously refused food and help prevent the introduction, 
transmission, or spread of communicable diseases into the United States 
by making it more difficult for unsafe food to reenter the United 
States.


Alternatives:


FDA considered exempting small businesses from the rule, but, because 
most importers and consignees would qualify as small businesses, this 
would negate the rule's purpose.


The agency also considered ordering the destruction of all refused food 
imports, but this would not be feasible because it would divert Federal 
resources to supervising or otherwise ensuring that the refused food 
imports are stored until they can be destroyed and that they are 
destroyed.


FDA also rejected affixing the label on some, but not all, imported 
food refused entry for safety reasons. While this alternative would be 
less costly, it would also be less efficient because some refused food 
imports would be able to reenter the United States and because a 
previously refused, but unlabeled, food would be difficult to detect 
compared to a previously refused and labeled food. This alternative 
would also result in arguments as to the criteria to be applied and 
whether a particular food should be labeled.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Importers and consignees would bear the costs associated with affixing 
the label to refused food imports. The rule's costs would, therefore, 
consist of labor costs (to affix the label) and equipment costs (the 
label equipment used). FDA will estimate these costs in the proposed 
rule.


The rule's principal benefit would be a reduction in the number of 
illnesses and injuries caused by unsafe imported food. The Agency is 
unable to quantify the amount of illegal importation of previously 
refused foods, so it cannot accurately predict the value of reduced 
illnesses and injury.


Risks:


There is a possible risk previously refused, unpackaged food (such as 
loose grain in a railroad car) would be able to enter the United States 
because the food itself cannot be labeled, although the proposed rule 
would require the importer or consignee to affix a label on papers 
accompanying the product.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Philip L. Chao
Senior Policy Analyst
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Office of Policy and Planning (HF-23)
Room 14C-17
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301 827-0587
Fax: 301 827-4774
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF61
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



41. MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING; ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 352; 21 USC 360; 21 USC 360i; 21 USC 360j; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 
374


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 803


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend its

[[Page 69807]]

postmarket medical device reporting regulations to require that reports 
submitted to the Agency by persons subject to mandatory reporting 
requirements be transmitted electronically in a form that FDA can 
process, review, and archive. FDA is taking this action to improve the 
Agency's systems for collecting and analyzing postmarketing safety 
reports. The proposed change would help the Agency to more quickly 
review safety reports and identify emerging public health issues.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule would require user facilities and medical device 
manufacturers and importers to send medical device adverse event 
reports electronically instead of using a paper form. FDA is taking 
this action to improve its adverse event reporting program by enabling 
it to more quickly receive and process these reports.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Agency has legal authority under section 519 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require adverse event reports. The proposed 
rule would require manufacturers, importers, and user facilities to 
change their procedures to send reports of medical device adverse 
events to FDA electronically instead of using a hard copy form.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the medical 
device reporting requirements and not requiring electronic submission 
of this information. For over 20 years, medical device manufacturers, 
importers, and user facilities have sent adverse event reports to FDA 
on paper forms. Processing paper forms is a time consuming and 
expensive process. FDA believes this rulemaking is the preferable 
alternative.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The principal benefit would be to public health because the increased 
speed in the processing and analysis of the 100,000 medical device 
reports currently submitted in paper. In addition, requiring electronic 
submission would reduce FDA annual operating costs by $1.25 million.


The total one-time cost for modifying SOPs and establishing electronic 
submission capabilities is estimated to range from $58.6 million to 
$79.7 million. Annually recurring costs totaled $8.9 million and 
included maintenance of electronic submission capabilities, including 
renewing the electronic certificate, and for some firms the incremental 
cost to maintain high-speed internet access.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215)
PI50 RM150F
1350 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240 276-2347
Fax: 240 276-2352
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF86
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



42. ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION AND LISTING FOR DEVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-188, sec 321; 21 USC 360(p)


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 807


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the new 
requirements in section 321 of the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (BT Act) and section 
510(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was added by 
section 207 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 
2002 (MDUFMA). This proposed rule would require domestic and foreign 
device establishments to submit registration and listing data 
electronically via the Internet using FDA's Unified Registration and 
Listing System. This proposed rule would convert the registration and 
listing process to a paperless process. For those companies that do not 
have access to the web, FDA would offer an avenue by which they can 
register, list, and update information with a paper submission.


Statement of Need:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the new 
requirements in section 321 of the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (BT Act) and section 
207 of MDUFMA. This proposed rule would improve FDA's device 
establishment registration and listing system and utilize the latest 
technology in the collection of this information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The statutory basis for our authority includes sections 510(a) through 
(j), 510(p), 701, 801, and 903 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the 
registration and listing regulations and not requiring the electronic 
submission of registration and listing information. Because of the new 
statutory requirements, and the advances in data collection and 
transmission technology, FDA believes this rulemaking is the preferable 
alternative to the paper system currently in place.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency believes that there may be some one-time costs associated 
with the rulemaking, which involve resource costs of familiarizing 
users with the electronic system. Recurring costs related to submission 
of the information by domestic firms would probably remain the same or 
decrease because a paper submission and postage is not required. There 
might be some increase in the financial burden on foreign firms since 
they will have to supply additional registration information as 
required by section 321 of the BT Act.


Risks:


None

[[Page 69808]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215)
PI50 RM150F
1350 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240 276-2347
Fax: 240 276-2352
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF88
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




43. CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, PACKING, OR 
HOLDING DIETARY INGREDIENTS AND DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 343; 21 USC 348; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 
21 USC 381; 21 USC 393; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 111


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration published a final rule in the Federal 
Register of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34572), on current good manufacturing 
practice (CGMP) regulations for dietary supplements. The final rule 
(the CGMP rule) was published to establish the minimum CGMPs necessary 
to ensure that, if firms engage in activities related to manufacturing, 
packaging, labeling or holding dietary supplements, they do so in a 
manner that will ensure the quality of the dietary supplements -- i.e., 
to ensure that the dietary supplement consistently meets the 
established specifications for identity, purity, strength, and 
composition, and limits on contaminants, and has been manufactured, 
packaged, labeled, and held under conditions to prevent adulteration 
under section 402(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of the act.


FDA also published an interim final rule (IFR) in the June 25, 2007 
Federal Register (72 FR 34959) that sets forth a procedure for 
requesting an exemption from the requirement in the final rule 
described above that the manufacturer conduct at least one appropriate 
test or examination to verify the identity of any component that is a 
dietary ingredient. This IFR allows for submission to, and review by, 
FDA of an alternative to the required 100 percent identity testing of 
components that are dietary ingredients, provided certain conditions 
are met. This IFR also establishes a requirement for retention of 
records relating to the FDA's response to an exemption request.


Statement of Need:


FDA published the CGMP rule for dietary supplements because FDA is 
concerned that some firms may not be taking appropriate steps during 
the manufacture of dietary supplements to ensure the quality of dietary 
supplement. FDA is aware of products that contain potentially harmful 
contaminants because of apparently inadequate manufacturing controls 
and quality control procedures. There also have been cases of 
misidentified ingredients harming consumers using dietary supplements. 
The Agency believes that a system of CGMPs is the most effective and 
efficient way to ensure the quality of dietary supplements.


With respect to the specific requirement for 100 percent identity 
testing of dietary ingredients, FDA recognizes that it may be possible 
for a manufacturer to demonstrate, through various methods and 
processes in use over time for its particular operation, that a system 
of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no material 
diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary ingredient as 
compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing. To 
provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to make such a showing and 
reduce the frequency of identity testing of components that are dietary 
ingredients from 100 percent to some lower frequency, FDA is adding to 
the CGMP rule an exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity 
testing when a manufacturer petitions the agency for such an exemption 
to 100 percent identity testing and the agency grants such exemption. 
Such a procedure would be consistent with FDA's stated goal, as 
described in the CGMP final rule, of providing flexibility in the CGMP 
requirements. FDA is providing an opportunity for interested persons to 
comment on whether this exemption procedure should be modified, and if 
so, whether there is any additional information that may be helpful to 
articulate with respect to what a petition needs to show that may 
inform future guidance.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the CGMP rule, failure to manufacture, pack, label or hold 
dietary supplements under CGMPs renders the dietary supplement 
adulterated under section 402(g) of the Act.


Alternatives:


The two principal alternatives to comprehensive CGMPs are end product 
testing and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). The Agency 
asked whether different approaches may be better able to address the 
needs of the broad spectrum of firms that conduct one or more distinct 
operations, such as the manufacture of finished products, or solely the 
distribution and sale of finished products at the wholesale or retail 
level.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of the CGMP rule will include the value of resources devoted 
to increased sanitation, process monitoring and controls, testing, and 
written records. The benefits of the CGMP rule are to improve product 
quality. We estimate that the regulation will reduce the number of 
sporadic human illnesses and rare catastrophic illnesses from 
contaminated products. The current quality of these products is highly 
variable. The CGMP rule will have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses, so it is significant under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. We anticipate that small

[[Page 69809]]

businesses will bear a proportionately larger cost than large 
businesses.


The IFR, as one piece of the CGMP rule, is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
FDA has identified 1,460 establishments that may apply to FDA for an 
exemption from dietary ingredient identity testing as provided for by 
this IFR. FDA expects some cost savings from reduced dietary ingredient 
identity testing depending on the number of firms that successfully 
apply to FDA for exemption. The IFR provisions will cause no net change 
in the benefits of dietary supplement current good manufacturing 
practices as outlined in the final rule.


Risks:


Any potential for consumers to be provided adulterated (e.g., 
contaminated with industrial chemicals, pesticides, microbial 
pathogens, or dangerous misidentified ingredients or toxic components 
of ingredients) products must be considered a very serious risk because 
of the possibility that such contamination could be widespread, 
affecting whole segments of the population, causing some severe long-
term effects and even loss of life. Dietary supplements are used by a 
large segment of the American public. Moreover, they are often used by 
segments of the population that are particularly vulnerable to 
adulterated products, such as the elderly, young children, pregnant and 
nursing women, and persons who may have serious illnesses or are taking 
medications that may adversely interact with dietary supplements. FDA 
has adopted manufacturing controls for a number of foods and 
commodities that present potential health hazards to consumers if not 
processed properly, including seafood, juice products, and fruits and 
vegetables, and it is appropriate that FDA consider whether 
manufacturing controls are necessary to assure consumers that dietary 
supplements are not adulterated during the manufacturing, packing, 
labeling or holding process.


If an incorrect dietary ingredient is added to a dietary supplement, 
consumers could be exposed to a biologically active substance without 
their knowledge. For example, FDA is aware of a case in which Digitalis 
lanata was misidentified as plantain and, as a result, a young woman 
experienced a life-threatening abnormal heart function after consuming 
a dietary supplement containing D. lanata in lieu of plantain. 
Manufacturers who petition FDA for an exemption from the requirement 
for 100 percent identity testing would be required to show that a 
system of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no 
material diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary 
ingredient as compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent 
identity testing.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           02/06/97                     62 FR 5700
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/06/97
NPRM                            03/13/03                    68 FR 12157
NPRM Comment Period End         08/11/03
Final Action                    06/25/07                    72 FR 34752
Interim Final Rule              06/25/07                    72 FR 34959
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          10/24/07
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Linda Kahl
Senior Policy Analyst
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-024)
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1209
Fax: 301 436-2964
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



44. PREVENTION OF SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS IN SHELL EGGS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 381; 21 USC 393; 42 USC 243; 
42 USC 264; 42 USC 271; . . .


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 16; 21 CFR 116; 21 CFR 118


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Publication of this final rule is an action item in the Food Protection 
Plan announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 
November 2007.


In July 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food 
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) committed to developing an action plan 
to address the presence of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in shell eggs 
and egg products using a farm-to-table approach. FDA and FSIS held a 
public meeting on August 26, 1999, to obtain stakeholder input on the 
draft goals, as well as to further develop the objectives and action 
items for the action plan. The Egg Safety Action Plan was announced on 
December 11, 1999. The goal of the Action Plan is to reduce egg-related 
SE illnesses by 50 percent by 2005 and eliminate egg-related SE 
illnesses by 2010. The Egg Safety Action Plan consists of eight 
objectives covering all stages of the farm-to-table continuum as well 
as support functions. On March 30, 2000 (Columbus, OH), April 6, 2000 
(Sacramento, CA), and July 31, 2000 (Washington, DC), joint public 
meetings were held by FDA and FSIS to solicit and discuss information 
related to the implementation of the objectives in the Egg Safety 
Action Plan.


On September 22, 2004, FDA published a proposed rule that would require 
egg safety measures to prevent the contamination of shell eggs with SE 
during egg production. The proposal also solicited comment on whether 
recordkeeping requirements should include a written SE prevention plan 
and records for compliance with the SE prevention measures, and whether 
safe egg handling and preparation practices should be mandated for 
retail establishments that specifically serve a highly susceptible 
population (e.g., nursing homes, hospitals, day care centers). The 
proposed egg production SE prevention measures included: (1) Provisions 
for procurement of chicks and pullets; (2) a biosecurity program; (3) a 
rodent and pest control program; (4) cleaning and disinfection of 
poultry houses that have had an environmental or egg test positive for 
SE; (5) egg testing when an environmental test is positive; and (6) 
refrigerated storage of eggs held at the farm. Additionally, to

[[Page 69810]]

verify that the measures have been effective, the rule proposes that 
producers test the poultry house environment for SE. If the 
environmental test is positive, eggs from that environment must be 
tested for SE, and if the egg test is positive, the eggs must be 
diverted to egg products processing or a treatment process that 
achieves at least a five-log destruction of SE.


The proposed rule was a step in a broader farm-to-table egg safety 
effort that includes FDA's requirements for safe handling statements on 
egg cartons, and refrigerated storage of shell eggs at retail, and egg 
safety education for consumers and retail establishments. The rule had 
a 90-day comment period, which ended December 21, 2004. To discuss the 
proposed rule and solicit comments from interested stakeholders, FDA 
held three public meetings: October 28, 2004, in College Park, MD; 
November 9, 2004, in Chicago, IL; and November 16, 2004, in Los 
Angeles, CA. The comment period was reopened until July 25, 2005, to 
solicit further comment and information on industry practices and 
programs that prevent SE-monitored chicks from becoming infected by SE 
during the period of pullet rearing until placement into laying hen 
houses.


Statement of Need:


FDA proposed regulations as part of the farm-to-table safety system for 
eggs outlined by the President's Council on Food Safety in its Egg 
Safety Action Plan. FDA intends to publish a final egg safety rule 
because of the continued reports of outbreaks of foodborne illness and 
death caused by SE that are associated with the consumption of shell 
eggs. The agency believes that this rule, when final, will have 
significant effect in reducing the risk of illness from SE-contaminated 
eggs and will contribute significantly to the interim public health 
goal of a 50 percent reduction in egg-related SE illness.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA's legal basis derives in part from sections 402(a)(4) and 701(a) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) ((21 U.S.C. 
342(a)(4) and 371(a)). Under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, a food is 
adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held in insanitary conditions 
whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or may have been 
rendered injurious to health. Under section 701(a) of the Act, FDA is 
authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the 
Act. FDA's legal basis also derives from section 361 of the Public 
Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority 
to promulgate regulations to control the spread of communicable 
disease.


Alternatives:


There are several alternatives that the Agency considered in the 
proposed rule. The principal alternatives included: (1) No new 
regulatory action; (2) alternative testing requirements; (3) 
alternative on-farm prevention measures; (4) alternative retail 
requirements; and (5) HACCP.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The benefits from a final regulation to control Salmonella enteritidis 
in shell eggs derive from improved practices that reduce contamination 
and generate benefits measured as the value of the human illnesses 
prevented. FDA has produced estimates of costs and benefits for a 
number of options. The mitigations considered include on-farm rodent 
control, changes in retail food preparation practices, diversion of 
eggs from infected flocks to pasteurization, recordkeeping, 
refrigeration, and feed testing. The actual costs and benefits of the 
final rule will depend upon the set of mitigations chosen and the set 
of entities covered.


Risks:


The potential for contamination of eggs with SE and its subsequent 
survival or growth must be considered a very serious risk because of 
the possibility that such contamination, survival, and growth could 
cause widespread foodborne illness, including some severe long-term 
effects and even loss of life. FDA's decision to publish a final rule 
to reduce this risk of SE contamination of shell eggs is based on a 
considerable body of evidence, literature and expertise in this area. 
In addition, this decision was also based on the USDA risk assessment 
on SE in shell eggs and egg products and the identified public health 
benefits associated with controlling SE in eggs at the farm and retail 
levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/22/04                    69 FR 56824
NPRM Comment Period End         12/21/04
NPRM Reopened Comment 
    Period End                  06/09/05                    70 FR 24490
NPRM Extension of 
    Reopened Comment 
    Period End                  07/25/05                    70 FR 33404
Final Action                    04/00/08

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.


Agency Contact:
John F. Sheehan
Director
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety (HFS-315)
Room 3B-012
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-2367
Fax: 301 436-2632
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AC14
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



45. PRIOR NOTICE OF IMPORTED FOOD UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND 
BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE ACT OF 2002

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-188, sec 307


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 1.276 et seq


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 12, 2003.


The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 
Act of 2002, section 307, directs the Secretary, through FDA, to issue 
final regulations establishing prior notice requirements for all 
imported food by December 12, 2003. If FDA fails to issue final 
regulations by this date, the statute is self-executing on this date, 
and requires FDA to receive prior notice of not less than eight hours, 
nor

[[Page 69811]]

more than five days, until final regulations are issued.


Abstract:


This rulemaking is one of a number of actions being taken to improve 
FDA's ability to respond to threats of bioterrorism. Section 801(m) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), which was added by 
section 307 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness 
and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), requires notification 
to FDA prior to the entry of imported food. The regulation explains the 
information that the prior notice is required to contain, the method of 
submission of the notice, and the minimum and maximum period of advance 
notice required. Section 307 also states that if FDA does not receive 
prior notice or receives inadequate prior notice, the imported food 
shall be refused admission and held at the port of entry until proper 
notice is provided.


Section 307 authorizes the Secretary, through FDA, to promulgate final 
regulations by December 12, 2003. FDA and the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) issued an interim final rule (IFR) on October 
10, 2003 (68 FR 58974). The IFR originally provided a 75-day comment 
period to ensure that those that comment on the IFR have the benefit of 
our outreach and educational efforts and have the experience with the 
systems, timeframes, and data elements. We reopened the comment period 
for an additional 90 days in April through July 2004, to allow for 
additional comment on the industry's experience with the prior notice 
system, and comment on the Joint FDA-CBP Plan for Increasing 
Integration and Assessing the Coordination of Prior Notice Timeframes. 
The final rule currently is under development, and it will confirm or 
amend the IFR, as appropriate. This final rule is not expected to have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.


Statement of Need:


This final rule is needed to complete the rulemaking process to 
implement section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act. The proposed rule was 
published on February 3, 2003, (68 FR 5428) and the interim final rule 
on October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58974).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act amended the act by adding section 
801(m), which authorizes the Secretary through FDA to establish by 
regulation requirements for the notification to FDA prior to the entry 
of imported food. In addition, section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act also 
amends section 301 of the act by making the offering of a food for 
import or the importing of a food without prior notification, as 
required by the new regulations, a prohibited act.


Alternatives:


An alternative is to leave the IFR in place and not to issue a final 
rule. However, we received numerous comments in response to the IFR 
that require a response. Finalizing this rule will assist industry and 
the public in better understanding and complying with the prior notice 
requirements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The final rule will amend the interim final rule already in place. We 
do not expect the changes from the interim final rule to be 
economically significant.


This final rule will require that FDA be notified prior to the arrival 
of the food.


Having prior notice of imported food will help deter deliberate and 
accidental contamination of food shipments. Knowledge of when, where, 
and how imported food will enter the United States will help mitigate 
the effects of any potential food contamination issues.


Risks:


Regulations implementing legislation to protect the health of citizens 
against bioterrorism and other public health threats would advance the 
development, organization, and enhancement of public health prevention 
systems and tools. The magnitude of the risks addressed by such systems 
and tools is at least as great as the other risk reduction efforts 
within HHS' jurisdiction. These regulations will improve the FDA's 
ability to address bioterrorism events and public-health threats 
associated with imported food.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/03/03                     68 FR 5428
Interim Final Rule              10/10/03                    68 FR 58974
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period 
    Reopened                    04/14/04                    69 FR 19763
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period 
    Reopened End                07/13/04
Final Rule                      04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
May Nelson
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1722
Fax: 301 436-2637
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AC41
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



46. EXPANDED ACCESS TO INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS FOR TREATMENT USE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 355; 21 USC 360bbb; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 262


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 312.42; 21 CFR 312.300; 21 CFR 312.305; 21 CFR 312.310; 21 CFR 
312.315; 21 CFR 312.320


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration proposed in the Federal Register of 
December 14, 2006 (75 FR 75147), to amend the regulations governing 
investigational new drugs to describe the ways patients may obtain 
investigational drugs for treatment use under expanded access programs. 
Such use of investigational drugs would be available to: (1) Individual 
patients, including in emergencies; (2) intermediate size patient 
populations; and (3) larger populations under a treatment protocol or 
treatment IND.


Statement of Need:


The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 
(Modernization Act) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

[[Page 69812]]

(the Act) to include specific provisions concerning expanded access to 
investigational drugs for treatment use. In particular, section 561(b) 
of the Act permits any person, acting through a licensed physician, to 
request access to an investigational drug to diagnose, monitor, or 
treat a serious disease or condition provided that a number of 
conditions are met. The rule is needed to incorporate into FDA's 
regulations this and other provisions of the Modernization Act 
concerning access to investigational drugs.


In addition, the agency seeks to increase awareness and knowledge of 
expanded access programs and the procedures for obtaining 
investigational drugs for treatment use. The rule will assist in 
achieving this goal by describing in detail the criteria, submission 
requirements, and safeguards applicable to different types of treatment 
uses.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA has the authority to impose requirements concerning the treatment 
use of investigational drugs under various sections of the Act, 
including sections 505(i), 561, and 701(a) (21 U.S.C. 355(i), 360bbb, 
and 371(a)).


Section 505(i) of the Act directs the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations exempting from the operation of the new drug approval 
requirements drugs intended solely for investigational use by experts 
qualified by scientific training and expertise to investigate the 
safety and effectiveness of drugs. The proposed rule explains 
procedures and criteria for obtaining FDA authorization for treatment 
uses of investigational drugs.


The Modernization Act provides significant additional authority for 
this rulemaking. Section 561(a) states that the Secretary may, under 
appropriate conditions determined by the Secretary, authorize the 
shipment of investigational drugs for the diagnosis, monitoring, or 
treatment of a serious disease or condition in emergency situations. 
Section 561(b) allows any person, acting through a physician licensed 
in accordance with State law, to request from a manufacturer or 
distributor an investigational drug for the diagnosis, monitoring, or 
treatment of a serious disease or condition if certain conditions are 
met. Section 561(c) closely tracks FDA's existing regulation at 21 CFR 
part 312.34 providing for treatment use by large patient populations 
under a treatment protocol or treatment IND if a number of conditions 
are met.


Section 701(a) provides the Secretary with the general authority to 
promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of the Act. By 
clarifying the criteria and procedures relating to treatment use of 
investigational products, this proposed rule is expected to aid in the 
efficient enforcement of the Act.


Alternatives:


One alternative to this rulemaking that FDA considered was not to 
promulgate regulations implementing the expanded access provisions of 
the Modernization Act. However, the agency believes that promulgating 
regulations would further improve the availability of investigational 
drugs for treatment use by providing clear direction to sponsors, 
patients, and licensed physicians about the criteria for authorizing 
treatment use and what information must be submitted to FDA.


Another alternative FDA considered was a regulation describing only 
individual patient and large scale expanded access criteria. However, 
the agency concluded that it would be preferable to have a third 
category of expanded access for intermediate size patient populations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FDA expects that the total one-time costs of the rule will be 
negligible. The agency expects that the annual and annualized costs of 
the rule will range from a low of about $130,000 to $260,000 in the 
first year following publication of a final rule based on the proposal, 
to a high of about $350,000 to $690,000 in the fourth and fifth years. 
These estimates suggest that total annual and annualized costs for the 
rule would be between $1.4 million and $2.7 million for the 5-year 
period following implementation of any final rule based on the 
proposal. The agency also expects that the estimated incremental cost 
burdens associated with this rule are likely to be widely dispersed 
among affected entities.


The benefits of the rule are expected to result from improved patient 
access to investigational drugs generally and from treatment use being 
made available for a broader variety of disease conditions and 
treatment settings. In particular, the clarification of eligibility 
criteria and submission requirements would enhance patient access by 
easing the administrative burdens on individual physicians seeking 
investigational drugs for their patients and on sponsors who make 
investigational drugs available for treatment use.


Risks:


The agency foresees no risks associated with the rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/14/06                    71 FR 75147
NPRM Comment Period End         03/14/07
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Christine F. Rogers
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Suite 1101
5515 Security Lane
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF14
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




47. STANDARDS FOR E-PRESCRIBING UNDER MEDICARE PART D (CMS-0016-P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1395


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 423


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 1, 2008.

[[Page 69813]]

Abstract:


This rule proposes standards for electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) 
under Medicare Part D. This rule would require Medicare Part D and 
Medicare Advantage plans to support electronic transmission of basic 
prescription data to and from doctors and pharmacies and to adopt final 
standards for e-prescribing as required by section 101 of the MMA.


Statement of Need:


This rule would implement section 101 of the MMA, which includes the 
requirement that the Secretary promulgate final uniform standards for 
the electronic transmission of prescriptions and certain other 
information for covered Part D drugs prescribed for Part D eligible 
individuals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 101 of the MMA requires that the Secretary promulgate final 
uniform standards for the electronic transmission of prescriptions and 
certain other information for covered Part D drugs prescribed for Part 
D eligible individuals by no later than April 1, 2008.


Alternatives:


This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


All Medicare drug plans would be required to implement the standards. 
We expect that the standards would include transactions for 
communicating medication history and formulary information to 
prescribers, which would result in fewer adverse drug events and 
increased formulary compliance.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, plans may not be aware of 
the uniform standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/16/07                    72 FR 64900
NPRM Comment Period End         01/15/08
Final Action                    04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
Denise Buenning
Senior Advisor
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop S2-26-17
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6711
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AO66
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



48. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN APPEALS PROVISIONS TO THE MEDICARE 
PRESCRIPTION DRUG APPEALS PROCESS (CMS-4127-P)

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


sec 1102, 1860D-1 to 1860D-42, and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1302, 1395w-101 to 1395w-152, and 1395hh)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 560 to 638


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The voluntary prescription drug benefit program was enacted into law by 
section 101 of title 1 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The implementing regulations for 
the Part D program were published in a final rule on January 28, 2005, 
and became effective March 22, 2005. These regulations provide that the 
Medicare Advantage (MA) rules regarding appeals and reopenings will 
apply to the Part D appeals process to the extent they are appropriate. 
The MA regulations in turn apply the fee-for-service (FFS) appeals 
regulations (concerning the administrative review and hearing processes 
and representation of parties under titles II and XVIII of the Act) to 
the extent they are appropriate.


Based on this regulatory framework, we noted in the January 28, 2005, 
rule that differences in the appeals procedures for Part D enrollees 
would be addressed in a future Part D rulemaking document. The purpose 
of the proposed rule is to provide additional guidance on the 
differences in appeals procedures for Part D enrollees by proposing 
more detailed regulations governing Part D appeals at the ALJ, MAC, and 
Federal district court levels and reopenings of determinations and 
decisions that follow the Part A and Part B procedures set forth in the 
part 405 rule, as appropriate.


Statement of Need:


This rule proposes the procedures that the Department of Health and 
Human Services would follow at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and 
Medicare Appeals Council (MAC) levels in deciding appeals brought by 
individuals who have enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
program and the reopening procedures that would be followed at all 
levels of appeal.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The voluntary prescription drug benefit program (``Part D'') was 
enacted into law by Title I of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The MMA specified 
that the prescription drug benefit would become available on January 1, 
2006 for individuals entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A or 
enrolled under Medicare Part B. The implementing regulations for the 
Part D program were published in a final rule on January 28, 2005, and 
became effective March 22, 2005.


Alternatives:


In addition to developing regulations, the agency also considered 
providing this guidance through a CMS Ruling. Similarly, we also 
weighed the option of not issuing any additional guidance, and allowing 
individual adjudicators to determine how the provisions apply to part D 
appeals and reopenings.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In the current Part D appeals process, there are no explicit procedures 
for processing appeal requests at the ALJ, MAC, or Federal court levels 
or for processing reopening requests. The absence of clear and 
efficient procedures for upper level appeals and reopenings may delay 
beneficiary access and/or delay the actual processing of appeals at 
these levels and reopenings. The costs associated with these outcomes 
are likely to be increased costs for beneficiaries.

[[Page 69814]]

Beneficiaries who have difficulty accessing the appeals or reopenings 
processes or who cannot access these processes, may elect to pay for 
their medications out-of-pocket. Similarly, beneficiaries who 
experience delays in receiving appeals decisions, may choose to pay for 
their medications while awaiting a decision. Finally, beneficiaries who 
are without their medications for extended periods of time because they 
experience long delays in processing appeals may experience adverse 
health consequences, including additional hospitalizations.


Risks:


Under the current regulatory framework, the absence of specific rules 
governing the adjudication of upper level Part D appeals requires each 
adjudicator to make his/her own determination about how the provisions 
apply to the Part D appeals and reopenings processes. Relying on 
individual adjudicators could result in inconsistencies in the process 
for beneficiaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Anthony Culotta
Director, Medicare Enrollment & Appeals Group
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop C2-12-16
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4661
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AO87
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



49.  MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES (CMS-4084-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Sec. 1882 of the Social Security Act


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 403.200 et seq


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The regulation outlines procedures for the States and for CMS to 
certify the Medigap policies of private issuers. This rule is 
authorized under the Medigap program.


Statement of Need:


The current regulation was initially published in 1982 as an interim 
final rule, but was never finalized. Section 902 of the MMA requires 
that proposed or interim final rules be finalized within 3 years of the 
initial publication or the rule will sunset; therefore, CMS is 
publishing this update as a proposed rule.


These regulations outline the requirements for States and CMS to 
develop a process to certify Medigap policies of health insurance 
issuers. Since 1982 there have been several legislative enactments 
(including OBRA `90 and the MMA) that have changed the process and 
these changes must be incorporated into the rules.


We believe there will be a positive reaction to the proposed rule since 
it will be incorporating the certification process that has been 
updated by statute.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1882 of the Social Security Act.


Alternatives:


We considered not publishing an update because most of the provisions 
are in the statute, but we did not want to leave the current regulation 
in an outdated status.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Since States have incorporated the updated certification process, there 
should be no cost in complying with the proposed rules.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of having an outdated regulation create 
confusion with the certification process for Medigap policies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Cathy Windfield-Jones
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21144
Phone: 410 786-6674
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AP10
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



50.  CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
SYSTEM AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR CY 2009 (CMS-
1404-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


BBA; PPRA; BIPA; MMA; 42 USC 1302 et al.


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2008.


Abstract:


This rule would revise the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective 
payment system to implement applicable statutory requirements and 
changes arising from continuing experience with this system and to 
implement certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. In addition, the 
proposed rule describes proposed changes to the amounts and factors 
used to determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital outpatient 
services paid under the prospective payment system. The rule also 
proposes changes to the Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System list 
of services and rates. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after January 1 annually.

[[Page 69815]]

Statement of Need:


Medicare pays over 4,200 hospitals for outpatient department services 
under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS). The 
OPPS is based on groups of clinically similar services called 
ambulatory payment classifications (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC 
payment amounts based on claims data, proposes new payment polices, and 
updates the payments for inflation using the market basket. The 
proposed rule solicits comments on the proposed OPPS payment rates and 
new policies. This final does not impact payments to critical access 
hospitals as they are not paid under the OPPS. CMS will issue a final 
rule containing the payment rates for the 2009 OPPS at least 60 days 
before January 1, 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1833 of the Social Security Act establishes Medicare payment 
for hospital outpatient services. The final rule revises the Medicare 
hospital OPPS to implement applicable statutory requirements and 
changes arising from our continuing experience with this system and to 
implement certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. In addition, the 
proposed and final rules describe changes to the outpatient APC system, 
relative payment weights, outlier adjustments, and other amounts and 
factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital 
outpatient services paid under the prospective payment system. These 
changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after January 
1, 2009.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2009.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient hospital 
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2009.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
Alberta Dwivedi
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop, C5-01-26
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21207
Phone: 410 786-0763
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AP17
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



51.  REVISIONS TO PAYMENT POLICIES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE 
SCHEDULE AND AMBULANCE FEE SCHEDULE FOR CY 2009 (CMS-1403-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Social Security Act sec 1102; Social Security Act sec 1871


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 410 to 411; 42 CFR 413 to 414; 42 CFR 426


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2008.


Abstract:


This major proposed rule would make changes affecting Medicare Part B 
payment to physicians and other Part B suppliers. It also updates the 
ambulance fee schedule.


Statement of Need:


The statute requires that we establish each year, by regulation, 
payment amounts for all physicians' services furnished in all fee 
schedule areas. This major proposed rule would make changes affecting 
Medicare Part B payment to physicians and other Part B suppliers. It 
also updates the ambulance fee schedule.


The final rule has a statutory publication date of November 1, 2008, 
and implementation of January 1, 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes the 
payment for physician services provided under Medicare. Section 1848 of 
the Act imposes a deadline of no later than November 1 for publication 
of the final physician fee schedule rule.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2009.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, physician services will not 
be paid appropriately.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Diane Milstead
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop, C4-03-06
7500 Security Bouldvard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-3355
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AP18
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




52. END STAGE RENAL DISEASE (ESRD) CONDITIONS FOR COVERAGE (CMS-3818-F) 
(SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1395rr et al


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 413 to 414; 42 CFR 488; 42 CFR 494

[[Page 69816]]

Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 4, 2008, MMA sec. 902.


Abstract:


This final rule revises the requirements that end stage renal disease 
(ESRD) facilities must meet to be certified under the Medicare program.


Statement of Need:


This rule finalizes the February 4, 2005 proposed rule entitled 
``Medicare Program; Conditions for Coverage for End Stage Renal Disease 
Facilities.'' The requirements were last revised in their entirety in 
1976. The final rule establishes new conditions for coverage that 
dialysis facilities must meet to be certified under the Medicare 
program. This final rule focuses on the results of care provided to the 
patient, establishes performance expectations for facilities, 
encourages patients to participate in their plan of care and treatment, 
eliminates some procedural requirements, and preserves strong process 
measures when necessary to promote patient safety and well being, and 
continuous quality improvement. This final rule implements current 
professional standards of practice, provides a structure for internal 
facility quality improvement, and a framework for external oversight.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes benefits for individuals 
who have been determined to have end stage renal disease. The Act 
authorizes payments on behalf of such individuals to providers of 
services and renal dialysis facilities ``which meet requirements as the 
Secretary shall by regulation prescribe.'' ESRD conditions for coverage 
may be revised as needed under the Secretary's rulemaking authority.


Alternatives:


Retain the current conditions and rely upon the various quality 
improvement initiatives (e.g., the Dialysis Facility Compare website 
and the CMS Clinical Performance Measures Project) that have improved 
beneficiaries' quality of care.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We expect some Medicare savings resulting from this final rule due to 
an increase in the number of patients who will be exposed to the 
advantages of obtaining an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), and an increase 
in the number of patients choosing the option of self-care (home) 
dialysis as a result of it being discussed and explained to them.


Risks:


The final rule must be published by February 4, 2008 in order to comply 
with section 902 of the Medicare Modernization Act. In addition, 
failure to update the requirements would result in outdated ESRD 
conditions for coverage that are over 31 years old and do not reflect 
current medical practices or scientific advances in the field.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/04/05                     70 FR 6184
Final Action                    02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Teresa Casey
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Clinical Standards Group
S3-02-01
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-7215
Email: [email protected]

Lynn M Riley
Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
S3-02-01
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-1286
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AG82
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



53. HOSPICE CARE CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION (CMS-3844-F) (SECTION 610 
REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1395hh


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 418


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 27, 2008, MMA sec. 902.


Abstract:


This final rule is a regulatory reform initiative that revises existing 
conditions of participation that hospices must meet to participate in 
the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The requirements focus on the 
actual care delivered to patients and patients' families by hospices 
and the results of that care, reflect an interdisciplinary view of 
patient care, and allow hospices greater flexibility in meeting quality 
standards. These changes are an integral part of our efforts to achieve 
broad-based improvements and measurements of the quality of care 
furnished through Federal programs while at the same time reducing 
procedural burdens on providers.


Statement of Need:


This final rule revises and reorganizes the existing conditions of 
participation (CoPs) for Medicare participating hospice providers first 
published in 1983. The final rule focuses on the care delivered to 
patients and patients' families by hospices and the outcomes of that 
care. The requirements continue to reflect an interdisciplinary view of 
patient care and allow hospices flexibility in meeting quality 
standards. These changes are an integral part of the Administration's 
efforts to achieve broad-based improvements in the quality of health 
care furnished through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This rule 
codifies hospice language in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the 
Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Social Security Act (the Act) provides the statutory qualifications 
and requirements that a hospice must meet to receive payment for 
hospice care given to Medicare beneficiaries who elect the hospice 
benefit under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This section gives 
the Secretary broad authority to establish standards for hospices. 
Under this authority, the Secretary established conditions of 
participation (CoPs) for hospices.


In addition, the Act gives the Secretary the authority to make and 
publish such rules and regulations as may be necessary to the efficient 
administration of the functions with which he is charged under the Act. 
This section of the Act gives the Secretary broad authority to 
establish requirements for

[[Page 69817]]

hospices that are necessary for the efficient administration of the 
Medicare program.


Alternatives:


Rely on the current CoPs: We concluded that this was not a reasonable 
option because the current CoPs are not patient-focused but rather 
problem-focused, an approach that has inherent limits. Trying to ensure 
quality through the enforcement of prescriptive health and safety 
standards, rather than trying to improve quality of care for all 
patients, adversely affects agency improvement efforts and does not 
stimulate broad-based quality of care initiatives. On the other hand, 
revising the current CoPs would take advantage of continuing advances 
in health care delivery.


Increase prescriptive requirements relative to patient rights, drugs 
and durable medical equipment, and personnel qualifications: We decided 
not to pursue this approach because the additional burden that would be 
placed on hospices would outweigh any potential benefits.


Exclude the revisions to the comprehensive assessment and 
interdisciplinary group requirements: Since these areas represent two 
of the most frequently cited deficiencies noted during hospice surveys 
and have a great impact on patient care, we decided that these sections 
did, in fact, need to be strengthened.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Provisions within the final rule may require that some hospices provide 
patient care and patient care related services that they are not 
currently providing. These services will most likely require a cost 
outlay. Since these rules have not been revised for over 20 years, we 
believe that many of the improvements that are being made are already 
being implemented in whole or in part by a portion of hospices.


Risks:


This final rule must be published by May 26, 2008 in order to comply 
with section 902 of the Medicare Modernization Act. In addition, 
failure to update these outdated regulations will not address the needs 
of patients or providers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/27/05                    70 FR 30840
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Mary Rossi-Coajou
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Clinical Standards Group
Mailstop S3-02-01
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6051
Email: [email protected]

Danielle Shearer
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Clinical Standards Group
S3-02-01
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AH27
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



54. HEALTH COVERAGE PORTABILITY: TOLLING CERTAIN TIME PERIODS AND 
INTERACTIONS WITH FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (CMS-2158-F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 300gg; PL 104-191


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 146.113; 45 CFR 146.115; 45 CFR 146.117; 45 CFR 146.120; 45 CFR 
146.145


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This final rule will clarify certain portability requirements for group 
health plans and issuers of health insurance coverage offered in 
connection with a group health plan. It also implements changes made to 
the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 
and the Public Health Service Act enacted as part of the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to implement certain portability provisions of the 
Public Health Service Act as it pertains to private health plans and 
issuers. Specifically, it addresses the tolling of the 63-day break in 
creditable coverage when notices are not received, interactions of the 
law with the Family Medical and Leave Act, and special enrollment 
provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Public Health Service Act provides the authority to implement this 
rule.


Alternatives:


Since this is a statutory requirement, no alternatives were considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Promulgation of this rule will make it easier for individuals to 
transfer from one group health plan to another group health plan in the 
event of the loss of a job, a job transfer, the loss of spouse, or a 
divorce.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of individuals not being able to obtain 
health insurance because they did not receive proper notification that 
their prior coverage had been terminated. The tolling of the permitted 
63-day break in coverage, when an individual does not receive notice of 
termination of prior coverage, will provide those individuals 
additional time to obtain coverage through another health plan without 
being subject to pre-existing condition exclusions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/30/04                    69 FR 78800
Final Action                    08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.

[[Page 69818]]

Agency Contact:
Adam Shaw
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Center for Beneficiary Choices
Employer and Policy Operations Group
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-1091
Email: [email protected]

Karen Levin
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Center for Beneficiary Choices
Employer and Policy Operations Group
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-5445
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AL88
BILLING CODE 4150-24-S

[[Page 69819]]




DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) was created 
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS is comprised of 22 Federal agencies brought together for the 
common mission of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States, 
reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks, 
and minimizing damage and assisting in recovery from acts of terrorism, 
natural disasters, or other emergencies that might occur in the United 
States. The Department's Strategic Plan governs the development of DHS' 
strategies, programs and projects, and ultimately is reflected in the 
Department's budget and regulatory agenda. DHS' Strategic Plan is 
posted on the Department's Web site: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/
strategicplan.
DHS' Strategic Goals are:
AWARENESS- Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, 
determine potential impacts, and disseminate timely information to our 
homeland security partners and the American public.
PREVENTION - Detect, deter, and mitigate threats to our homeland.
PROTECTION- Safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical 
infrastructure, property, and the economy of our Nation from acts of 
terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
RESPONSE- Lead, manage, and coordinate the national response to acts of 
terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
RECOVERY - Lead national, state, local, and private sector efforts to 
restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, 
natural disasters, or other emergencies.
SERVICE - Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, 
travel, and immigration.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE - Value our most important resource, our 
people. Create a culture that promotes a common identity, innovation, 
mutual respect, accountability, and teamwork to achieve efficiency, 
effectiveness, and operational synergies.
In 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a six-point 
agenda to ensure that the Department's policies, operations, and 
structures are aligned in the best way to address the potential threats 
that face our nation. The Secretary's six-point agenda is intended to:
 Increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic 
            events;
 Create better transportation security systems to move people 
            and cargo more securely and efficiently;
 Strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform 
            immigration processes;
 Enhance information sharing with our partners;
 Improve DHS financial management, human resource development, 
            procurement and information technology; and
 Realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.
The regulations summarized in the Department's 2007 Fall Regulatory 
Program and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's Strategic 
Goals and the Secretary's six-point agenda and will improve the 
Department's ability to accomplish its primary missions.
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and 
unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Department's 
regulatory program, including the Unified Regulatory Agenda and 
Regulatory Plan, is managed by the Office of the General Counsel. In 
addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory 
project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the 
Department's Strategic Goals.
DHS also is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate and be accountable to 
the American public. The Department values public involvement in the 
development of its Regulatory Plan, Unified Agenda and regulations, and 
takes particular concern with the impact its rules have on small 
businesses. DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the 
use of plain language in our notices and rulemaking documents to 
promote better understanding of regulations and increased public 
participation in the Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2007 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations issued by 
the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the 
Department's major divisions or directorates, Science and Technology 
Directorate and the Management Directorate. Further, effective March 
21, 2007, the former-Preparedness Directorate was reorganized and moved 
under FEMA in accordance with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-296)(PKEMRA). Accordingly, active 
regulatory matters previously issued as Office of the Secretary rules 
by the former Preparedness Directorate, will now be identified as FEMA 
regulatory actions. In addition, DHS also established the National 
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). NPPD, which houses such 
offices as the Office of Cyber Security, the Office of Infrastructure 
Protection and US-VISIT, is responsible for several regulatory actions 
set forth in this Agenda.
DHS also has several components that have active regulatory programs, 
including the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), the U.S. Secret Service, 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration (FEMA), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Fall 2007 Regulatory 
Plans for the Office of the Secretary and those DHS regulatory 
components with submissions for the 2007 Plan are discussed below.
Office of the Secretary
REAL ID
During the Fall of 2007, DHS will be issuing a final rule to establish 
minimum standards for State-issued driver's licenses and identification 
cards that Federal agencies would accept for official purposes as 
required under the REAL ID Act of 2005. The REAL ID Act, prohibits 
Federal agencies, effective May 11, 2008, from accepting a driver's 
license or personal identification card (license) for an ``official 
purpose'' unless it has been issued by a State that has certified to, 
and been determined by DHS to meet, the requirements of the Act. The 
Act sets forth minimum document requirements, minimum issuance 
standards, and other requirements, including the following:
 Information and features that must appear on the face of the 
            license, and inclusion of a common machine readable portion 
            of a driver's license or identification card;
 Presentation and verification of information an applicant must

[[Page 69820]]

            provide before a license may be issued, including evidence 
            that the applicant is a U.S. citizen or has lawful status 
            in the United States;
 Physical security of locations where licenses are produced, 
            the security of document materials and papers from which 
            licenses are produced, and the background check of certain 
            employees involved in the manufacture and production of 
            licenses, and;
 Physical security of the licenses to prevent tampering, 
            counterfeiting, and duplication of the documents for a 
            fraudulent purpose.
On March 9, 2007, DHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 
this action. The Department received over 21, 000 comments on this 
rulemaking action.
Section 205(b) of the Act authorizes DHS to grant extensions of the 
time requirements under the Act to States who provide adequate 
justification for their inability to comply. In the March 9 NPRM, DHS 
indicated that any State that requested an extension no later than 
February 10, 2008, will be granted an extension until December 31, 
2009. In the final rule, we are moving the deadline for submission of 
requests for extensions until April 10, 2008. In addition, DHS is 
providing States with the opportunity to request a second extension 
beyond December 31, 2009, upon demonstrating that the State has 
achieved certain core benchmarks towards full compliance.
DHS is issuing this rule in consultation with the Department of 
Transportation, other representatives of the Federal Government, and 
representatives from many States, as required under the Act.
US-VISIT
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-
VISIT) is an integrated, automated entry-exit system that records the 
arrival and departure of aliens, verifies aliens' identities, and 
authenticates aliens' travel documents by comparison of biometric 
identifiers. The goals of US-VISIT are to enhance the security of the 
United States citizens and visitors to the United States, facilitate 
legitimate travel and trade, ensure the integrity of the United States 
immigration system, and protect the privacy of visitors to the United 
States. DHS will be issuing an NPRM by the end of 2007 to propose an 
exit program to collect biometric information from aliens departing the 
United States at all air and sea ports of departure. The exit system 
proposed under this rule also implements the requirements of the Secure 
Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership act of 2007.
DHS also expects to issue a final rule expanding the classes of aliens 
that will be subject to US-VISIT requirements to cover all aliens, 
including lawful permanent residents, with certain limited exceptions. 
This regulatory program supports the Department's Strategic Goals of 
awareness, prevention, and protection by securing our borders against 
terrorists who intend to harm the United States.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
The mission of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is 
to protect national security while conveying our Nation's privileges of 
freedom and citizenship through the rule of law. The three strategic 
priorities of USCIS are national security, customer service and 
organizational excellence. USCIS seeks to welcome lawful immigrants 
while preventing exploitation of the immigration system and we seek to 
create and maintain a high-performing, integrated, public service 
organization. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has a strong 
commitment to welcoming those individuals who seek entry through our 
legal immigration system, and also to assisting those in need of 
humanitarian protection against harm.
Based on a comprehensive review of the USCIS planned regulatory agenda, 
several rulemakings will be promulgated to directly support the 
aforementioned core priorities as delineated below.
National Security
USCIS has an essential role in supporting DHS's Strategic Goal to 
ensure the security and integrity of the immigration system by making 
certain that immigrants and nonimmigrants comply with the laws and 
security mandates to prevent those who seek to exploit our immigration 
benefits or engage in illegal activities from obtaining lawful status 
in this country. To further our national security objectives, USCIS is 
pursuing regulatory initiatives that will disallow the granting of 
immigration benefits while an applicant has an ongoing investigation. 
These regulatory initiatives include the following:
``Designation of Acceptable Documents for Employment Verification'' 
(``I-9 Reduction Rule''). This rulemaking action will reduce the number 
of documents acceptable for Employment Verification, or Form I-9, 
purposes. The current employment verification process uses a very dated 
list of acceptable documents and a revised Form I-9 has been approved. 
However, the entire list of documents needs to be shortened and the 
Form I-9 reissued in conjunction with a shorter list of more highly 
secure documents.
``Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Religious Workers.'' This final 
rule amends USCIS regulations regarding the special immigrant and 
nonimmigrant religious worker visa classifications. This rule clarifies 
several substantive and procedural issues that have arisen since the 
religious worker category was created, and provides new definitions 
that describe more clearly the regulatory requirements, as well as add 
specific evidentiary requirements for petitioning employers and 
prospective religious workers. This rule also addresses concerns about 
the integrity of the religious worker program by establishing a 
petition requirement for religious organizations seeking to classify an 
alien as an immigrant or nonimmigrant religious worker. Finally, this 
rule includes an on-site inspection requirement for religious 
organizations to ensure the legitimacy of petitioner organizations and 
employment offers made by such organizations.
Customer Service
USCIS strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate and responsive 
services to those who seek and qualify for admission into our country 
as well as providing seamless, transparent and dedicated customer 
support services within the agency. To improve our customer service 
goals, USCIS is pursuing regulatory initiatives that will make 
immigration procedures consistent with new laws, improve interpretive 
services, standardize adjudication and filing procedures, and modernize 
application processing to facilitate effective data collection and 
reporting.
These regulatory initiatives include:
``Petition to Classify Alien as Immediate Relative of a U.S. Citizen or 
as a Preference Immigrant; Self-Petitioning for Certain Battered or 
Abused Alien Spouses and Children.'' This rulemaking action would 
implement provisions of the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 
2000 and the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005. Those provisions amend the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act provisions that allow battered spouses,

[[Page 69821]]

children and parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to 
petition for immigrant classification without the assistance or consent 
of the abuser.
USCIS also is restructuring its entire business processes to implement 
new procedures for the filing, processing, and adjudication of all 
benefit applications and petitions. USCIS is moving toward complete 
electronic filing and adjudication of benefits to streamline 
processing, modernize adjudications, and facilitate efficient and 
effective data collection and reporting. USCIS will be issuing a 
rulemaking action ``New Electronic Account, Adjudication, and Reporting 
System; New Procedures for Filing and Processing of Fiscal Year 2007 H-
1B Petitions Subject to Annual Cap'' as part of this business 
restructuring process.
United States Coast Guard
The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-
mission, and maritime agency. Our statutory responsibilities include 
ensuring marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, 
protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and 
international treaties, and performing search and rescue. The Coast 
Guard supports the Department's overarching goal of mobilizing and 
organizing our nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, 
natural disasters, and other emergencies. In performing its duties, the 
Coast Guard has established five strategic goals--maritime safety, 
protection of natural resources, maritime security, maritime mobility 
and national defense. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast 
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the seven rules appearing in the Fall 
2007 Regulatory Plan below, support these strategic goals and reflect 
our regulatory policies. Further, although the Coast Guard has placed 
an emphasis on maritime security and national defense since September 
11, 2001, our regulatory responsibilities in the maritime safety area 
remain vital. The Coast Guard has issued many rules reflecting our 
maritime safety and environmental protection missions as indicated by 
the wide range of topics covered in its 60 rulemaking projects in this 
Unified Agenda.
``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader 
Requirements'' continues the Department's work in the important area of 
implementing the transportation security card requirements found in 46 
USC 70105. Under a final rule issued on January 25, 2007, certain 
workers in the maritime sector are now required to undergo security 
threat assessments and obtain TWICs. Under this rule, these cards are 
used as visual identity badges, and only read electronically if the 
Coast Guard conducts spot checks or an annual examination at a vessel 
or facility regulated by 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter H.
This new regulatory action proposes to require certain owners and 
operators of these vessels and facilities to also read the cards 
electronically, including checking for a match of the TWIC-holder's 
fingerprint with the template stored on the TWIC. This is necessary in 
order to ensure that only the individual to whom the TWIC was issued 
(and on whom the security threat assessment was conducted) is able to 
use it to gain unescorted access to secure areas, or to hold their 
Coast Guard issued merchant mariner credential. It is also necessary 
under the provisions of the Safety and Accountability For Every Port 
Act of 2006 (Pub. Law 109-347). This rulemaking supports the 
Commandant's strategic goal of maritime security.
``Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure and 
Automatic Identification System'' is a regulatory action of particular 
importance to the Coast Guard in the Department's Fall 2007 Regulatory 
Plan. Currently, the Coast Guard does not have a mechanism to capture 
vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels less 
than or equal to 300 gross tons intending to arrive at or depart from 
U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo or are 
arriving at a port or place within the 7th Coast Guard District 
(primarily Florida and surrounding waters). To remedy this situation, 
the Coast Guard plans to issue an NPRM proposing to expand the 
applicability of these requirements to better enable the Coast Guard to 
correlate vessel Automatic Identification System data with Notices of 
Arrival and Departure (NOAD) data, enhance our ability to identify and 
track vessels, detect anomalies, improve navigation safety, and 
heighten our overall maritime domain awareness and security. This 
rulemaking would expand the applicability of NOADs to include all 
foreign commercial vessels, regardless of tonnage, and all U.S. 
commercial vessels arriving from a foreign port or place. This 
rulemaking supports the Commandant's strategic goals of maritime safety 
and maritime security.
``Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels'' (USCG-2003-16158) is the first 
substantive revision in over a decade to Coast Guard regulations under 
the Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Act of 1988. Although statistics 
show an impressive decline in casualties since we issued our first 
fishing vessel regulations in 1991, commercial fishing remains one of 
the deadliest industries in America. Vessels often operate in rough 
weather or cold seas. Straining nets and full holds mean financial 
success for vessel operators and crews, but also put a vessel's ability 
to weather harsh conditions at risk. Vessel losses are generally due to 
a complex interplay of factors such as loss of stability, flooding, or 
equipment malfunctions, and precise identification of a single cause is 
virtually impossible. Therefore, the Coast Guard tries to foster, 
through its regulations, a culture of safety in which operators and 
crewmembers reduce the risks of a disaster occurring, and increase the 
odds of each crewmember's surviving any disaster that might occur. This 
rulemaking proposes new regulations to improve vessel stability, 
watertight integrity, and maintenance. It proposes additional safety 
equipment including expanded immersion suit requirements, adds new crew 
training and drill requirements, and calls for better documentation of 
regulatory compliance. This rulemaking supports the Commandant's 
strategic goal of maritime safety.
``Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention 
on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for 
Seafarers, 1978.'' In 1995, the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) comprehensively amended the STCW. The amendments came into force 
on February 1, 1997. This project implements those amendments by 
revising current regulations to ensure that the United States complies 
with their requirements for the training of merchant mariners, the 
documenting of their qualifications, and watch-standing and other 
arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the Unites States. We 
have also identified the need for additional changes to the interim 
rule issued in 1997. This rulemaking has been amended to address the 
training and assessments necessary to obtain merchant mariner 
credentials, to propose streamlined regulations for the mariner 
credential issuance process, and to make several minor editorial and 
clarification changes throughout Title 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, and 15. 
This project supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime 
safety.

[[Page 69822]]

``Increasing Passenger Weight Standards on Passenger Vessels,'' would 
develop a rule that addresses both the stability calculations and the 
environmental operating requirements for certain domestic passenger 
vessels. The proposed rule would address the outdated per-person weight 
averages that are currently used in stability calculations for certain 
domestic passenger vessels. In addition, the proposed rule would add 
environmental operating requirements for domestic passenger vessels 
that could be adversely affected by sudden inclement weather. This 
rulemaking would increase passenger safety by significantly reducing 
the risk of certain types of passenger vessels capsizing due to either 
passenger overloading or operating these vessels in hazardous weather 
conditions. This rulemaking supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal 
of maritime safety.
``Navigation Equipment; SOLAS Chapter V Amendments and Electronic Chart 
System.'' As a contracting government to the International Maritime 
Organization (IMO) International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
Sea, 1978 (SOLAS), the United States has an obligation to implement 
SOLAS regulations. This rulemaking is intended to implement amendments 
to SOLAS Chapter V safety of navigation regulations. These new 
regulations would provide for specific type-approval procedures and 
quality assurance processes, respectively, to require uniform function 
and capability of equipment across a myriad of manufacturers. They 
would also impose carriage requirements and reconcile existing domestic 
safety of navigation regulations with SOLAS Chapter V navigation safety 
regulations amended in 2000. Additionally, the rule would introduce 
regulations for electronic charts to meet Congress' mandate in section 
410 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. This 
rulemaking supports the Commandant's strategic goals of maritime safety 
and maritime mobility.
``Outer Continental Shelf Activities'' (USCG-1998-3868) would revise 
the regulations on resource exploration, development and production on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The new rule would: 1) Add new 
requirements for fixed OCS facilities for lifesaving, fire protection, 
training, hazardous materials used as stores, and accommodation spaces; 
2) require foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities to comply with 
requirements similar to those imposed on U.S. vessels similarly 
engaged; 3) allow all mobile inland drilling units to operate on the 
OCS out to a defined boundary line if they meet requirements for 
lifesaving, firefighting, and operations similar to those for fixed OCS 
facilities; and 4) add a Congressionally mandated component for notices 
of arrivals of foreign vessels on the OCS. Section 109 of the Safety 
and Accountability For Every Port Act (Pub. Law 109-347) requires 
promulgation of notice of arrival regulations governing foreign vessels 
to improve maritime security on the OCS. This project would affect the 
owners and operators of facilities and vessels engaged in offshore 
activities associated with the exploration for, development of, or 
production of the resources of the OCS. It supports the Coast Guard's 
strategic goals of marine safety, security, and environmental 
protection.
As of the publication date of this Regulatory Plan, the preliminary 
annualized (monetized) cost, adjusted for planned implementation dates 
and other factors, for all planned rulemakings in the Coast Guard's 
Regulatory Plan is approximately $189.3 million with a three percent 
interest rate and $196.4 million with a seven percent interest rate. 
The preliminary annualized (monetized) benefit is approximately $2.5 
million rounded at three or seven percent interest rates. The 
anticipated qualitative benefits from the planned rulemakings in the 
Regulatory Plan are increased port security and marine safety in U.S. 
waters, including improved safety for commercial fishing and 
passengers.
United States Customs and Border Protection
CBP is the federal agency principally responsible for the security of 
our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry and at 
official crossings into the United States. CBP must accomplish its 
border security and enforcement mission without stifling the flow of 
legitimate trade and travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland 
security mission, that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons 
from entering the United States. An important aspect of this priority 
mission involves improving security at our borders and ports of entry, 
but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical 
borders.
CBP also is responsible for administering laws concerning the 
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws 
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes 
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import 
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United 
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of 
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws 
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending 
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting 
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; 
servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the U.S.; maintaining 
export controls; and protecting American businesses from theft of their 
intellectual property.
``Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.'' In carrying out its priority 
mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the processing of legitimate trade 
and people efficiently without compromising security. During the past 
fiscal year, consistent with its primary mission of homeland security, 
CBP issued a proposed rule announcing the second phase of a joint 
Department of Homeland Security and Department of State plan, known as 
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). This rule proposed the 
specific documents that, as early as January 2008, and no sooner than 
60 days from publication of the final rule, U.S. citizens and 
nonimmigrant aliens from Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico would be required 
to present when entering the United States at sea and land ports-of-
entry from Western Hemisphere countries. CBP intends to finalize this 
rule before the end of 2007. WHTI implements requirements of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as 
amended, which provides that upon full implementation, U.S. citizens 
and certain classes of nonimmigrant aliens may enter the United States 
only with passports or such alternative documents as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security designates as satisfactorily establishing identity 
and citizenship.
On September 18, 2007, CBP published an NPRM ``Advance Information on 
Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the United States,'' proposing 
to require that the pilot of any private aircraft arriving in the 
United States from a foreign location or departing the United States 
for a foreign location provide an advance electronic transmission of 
information to CBP describing all of the individuals traveling onboard 
the aircraft. Transmission would be made by an electronic data 
interchange system approved by CBP. CBP intends to publish a final rule 
in 2008. These regulations would assist CBP in

[[Page 69823]]

adequately and accurately assessing potential security threats by 
private aircraft entering and departing the United States.
CBP also plans to issue before the end of 2007, a proposed rule 
``Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,'' 
seeking to amend CBP regulations to require carriers and importers to 
provide to CBP, via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system, 
information necessary to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to 
prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security. These 
regulations would implement the provisions of section 203 of the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and section 
343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002.
All the rules discussed above foster DHS' Strategic Goals of awareness 
and prevention.
Under section 403(1) of the HSA, the former-U.S. Customs Service, 
including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, 
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the 
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade 
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural 
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It is noted that certain 
regulatory authority of the United States Customs Service relating to 
customs revenue functions was retained by the Department of the 
Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury Regulatory Plan). In 
addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border 
security, CBP, during fiscal year 2008, expects to continue to issue 
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and 
implement trade benefit programs. Discussion of CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function is contained in the regulatory 
plan of the Department of the Treasury.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to 
prevent the movement across borders of people, money, and materials 
that could harm our Nation and its people; prevent violations of 
immigration law by terrorists, criminals, and others who exploit us by 
entering and remaining in the country illegally; and mitigate risks to 
National Security at home and abroad.
During fiscal year 2008, ICE will be pursuing rulemaking actions to 
implement major components of the President's and Department's 
strategic goals. Rulemaking actions will focus on three critical areas: 
strengthening requirements that persons working in the United States 
are permitted to be employed; ensuring that foreign students studying 
in educational institutions comply with the terms and conditions of 
their visas; and tightening processes within the justice system to 
ensure better control of aliens under judicial supervision.
ICE will continue its efforts to improve the Student Exchange Visitor 
Information Program (SEVP) and SEVP's Student and Exchange Visitor 
Information System (SEVIS) by issuing a proposed rule ``Adjustment of 
the Student and Exchange Visitor Program I-901 SEVIS Fee and School 
Certification Fee, and Establishment of a School Recertification Fee.'' 
This rule documents performance of a legally-mandated review of the 
fees collected by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program as they are 
levied upon prospective F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications and 
upon the schools that either have been or seek to be certified by the 
Department of Homeland Security to enroll F and M nonimmigrants as 
students. The rule proposes an increase in the fees currently collected 
from prospective F, M, and J students and exchange visitors, as well as 
the fees collected from schools seeking certification. These 
adjustments are based upon actual operating expenses that the Student 
and Exchange Visitor Program has experienced since the fees were first 
approved. The rule also proposes a fee for biennial recertification of 
certified schools to ensure their continued eligibility for 
certification and their compliance with recordkeeping, retention, and 
reporting requirements. The proposed fee adjustments and new fee will 
support the continuing operations of the Student and Exchange Visitor 
Program and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement related to: School 
certification, oversight, and recertification; tracking and monitoring 
of students and exchange visitors; and compliance enforcement.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA's primary mission is to reduce the loss of life and property and 
protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts 
of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting 
the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system 
of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. FEMA 
is leading the Nation's efforts to develop and maintain an integrated, 
nationwide operational capability to prepare for, respond to, recover 
from, and mitigate against hazards, regardless of their cause, in 
partnership with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
volunteer organizations, and the private sector. The agency also 
coordinates and implements the Federal response to disasters declared 
by the President.
In fiscal year 2008, FEMA will continue to promote the Department of 
Homeland Security's Strategic Goals of awareness, prevention, 
protection, response, and recovery. As a result of the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) (Public Law 109-295, 
October 4, 2006), FEMA underwent an agency-wide reorganization on March 
31, 2007 which included, among other things, the transfer of portions 
of the former Directorate of Preparedness from the Department to FEMA.
In furtherance of the Department and agency's goals, in the upcoming 
fiscal year, FEMA will be working on regulations to implement 
provisions of PKEMRA. The first of these four rules will update the 
current interim rule entitled ``Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance 
to Individuals and Households.'' This rulemaking project revises 44 CFR 
part 206, subparts D, E and F (the Individuals and Households Program 
(IHP)). Among other things, it will implement section 686 of PKEMRA to 
remove the IHP sub-caps; section 685 changes regarding semi-permanent 
and permanent housing construction eligibility; revise FEMA's 
regulations pursuant to sections 689, 689a, and 689e regarding 
individuals with disabilities, and individuals with limited English 
proficiency; and revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of 
security deposits and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone 
service, in accordance with section 689d of PKEMRA.
The agency will also work to revise 44 CFR part 206 subparts G & H. 
This new rulemaking project would update 44 CFR part 206 subparts G and 
H, regarding Public Assistance to reflect PKEMRA and the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Public Law 
109-347, October 13, 2006) and to make other corrections/revisions. 
Among other corrections/revisions, the proposed changes will expand 
eligibility to include performing arts

[[Page 69824]]

and community arts facilities pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; 
include educational facilities in the list of critical services that 
for private nonprofit facility eligibility for restoration funding per 
section 689h of PKEMRA; change the funding levels for alternate 
projects for public facilities repairs per section 609 of the SAFE Port 
Act; and include household pets and service animals in essential 
assistance pursuant to section 689 of PKEMRA.
FEMA also is working on a case management program that would provide 
case management services to individuals and households, including 
financial assistance to government agencies or qualified private 
organizations to address unmet needs, pursuant to section 689f of 
PKEMRA. FEMA is also working to implement the transportation assistance 
authority provided in section 689f of PKEMRA, which authorizes 
transportation assistance to relocate individuals displaced from their 
pre-disaster primary residence, to and from alternate locations for 
short or long-term accommodations.
In the upcoming fiscal year FEMA expects to publish a Special Community 
Disaster Loans regulation which would insert a cancellation provision 
pursuant to section 4502 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 
(Public Law 110-28, May 25, 2007). Finally, FEMA has distributed all 
funds and resolved all appeals related to the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 
2001, which distributed the proceeds to families of emergency relief 
personnel killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of 
duty in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 
Because this program is now complete, FEMA is working to finalize this 
rulemaking project and remove the existing interim regulatory text.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation's 
transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and 
commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the standard for 
excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, 
and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of 
the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2008, TSA will promote DHS' Strategic Goals of 
awareness, prevention, protection, response, and service by emphasizing 
regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, detect, and 
protect against threats to the transportation system, while 
facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling public, 
transportation workers, and cargo.
In furtherance of this goal, on August 23, 2007, TSA issued an NPRM 
``Secure Flight Program,'' to begin implementation of the Secure Flight 
program, in accordance with Sec. 4012(a) of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 
3638, 3714, Dec. 17, 2004). Under the Secure Flight program, TSA will 
begin to assume from aircraft operators the function of comparing 
passenger information to Federal Government watch lists and to more 
effectively and consistently prevent certain known or suspected 
terrorists from boarding aircraft where they may jeopardize the lives 
of passengers and others. The program is also designed to better focus 
enhanced passenger screening efforts on individuals likely to pose a 
threat to civil aviation. The Secure Flight program is also intended to 
facilitate the secure and efficient travel of the vast majority of the 
traveling public by distinguishing them from individuals on the watch 
list.
In addition, TSA plans to issue an NPRM ``Large Aircraft Security 
Programs,'' proposing to amend current aviation transportation security 
regulations to enhance the security of general aviation by expanding 
the scope of current requirements and by adding new requirements for 
certain large aircraft operators and airports serving those aircraft. 
To date, the Government's focus with regard to aviation security 
generally has been on air carriers and commercial operators. As 
vulnerabilities and risks associated with air carriers and commercial 
operators have been reduced or mitigated, terrorists may perceive that 
general aviation (GA) aircraft are more vulnerable and may view them as 
attractive targets. This rule will enhance aviation security by 
requiring operators of aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff 
weight (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') to adopt a 
security program and to undertake other security measures. The rule 
would also impose security requirements on certain airports that serve 
large aircraft to adopt security programs.
In addition, TSA plans to issue a rule that will finalize a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking published on December 21, 2006, that will enhance 
security in the rail transportation mode by imposing requirements on 
freight and passenger railroads and on facilities with rail connections 
that ship certain hazardous materials. The rulemaking will augment 
regulations issued by the Department of Transportation.
TSA also will issue several regulations to enhance the security of non-
aviation modes of transportation as required under the recently enacted 
Implementing Regulations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 
Commission Act)(Aug. 3, 2007). Pursuant to the requirements of the 911 
Commission Act, TSA will require high-risk public transportation 
agencies, railroads and over-the-road buses to develop and implement 
security plans to deter security threats. In addition, TSA will impose 
general requirements for security training of certain employees of 
public transportation agencies, railroads, and over-the-road buses. 
Finally, TSA will issue regulations to conduct security threat 
assessments and collect user fees for certain transportation personnel.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2008
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
DHS's Fall 2008 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




55. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS 
INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (US-VISIT); BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS FOR 
EXIT AT AIR AND SEA PORTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 to 1104 ; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1185 (pursuant to EO 
13323); 8 USC 1221 ; 8 USC 1365a, 1365b; 8 USC 1379; 8 USC 1731 to 1732


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 215.1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT) in

[[Page 69825]]

accordance with a series of legislative mandates requiring that DHS 
create an integrated automated entry-exit system that records the 
arrival and departure of aliens; verifies aliens' identities; and 
authenticates travel documents. On January 5, 2004, DHS published an 
Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register at 69 FR 468 authorizing the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to require, in part, certain aliens to 
provide fingerprints, photograph[s] or other biometric identifiers, 
documentation of immigration status in the United States, and other 
such evidence as may be required to determine the alien's identity and 
whether he or she has properly maintained immigration status while in 
the United States at the time of departure from the United States. The 
Interim Rule authorized the establishment of pilot programs at up to 
fifteen air and sea ports of entry to evaluate the implementation of 
this departure procedure. That evaluation pilot has been completed and 
this proposed rule would establish procedures for collection of 
biometrics on air and sea departures by aliens. This rule removes the 
limit on the collection of this information from the 15 locations of 
the pilot programs and authorizes implementation at all air and sea 
ports of entry. This rule requires those aliens required to provide 
biometric identifiers at entry to provide biometric identifiers upon 
departure at any air and sea port of entry at which facilities exist to 
collect such information.


Statement of Need:


This rule proposes to establish an exit system at all air and sea ports 
of departure in the United States. This rule proposes to require aliens 
subject to United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
Technology Program biometric requirements upon entering the United 
States to also provide biometric identifiers prior to departing the 
United States from air or sea ports of departure. The rule further 
proposes to require commercial air and vessel carriers to collect and 
transmit the biometric information to DHS.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Michael Hardin
Senior Policy Advisor, US-VISIT
Department of Homeland Security
18th Floor
1616 North Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 202 298-5200
Fax: 202 298-5201
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--OS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




56. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS 
ACCEPTABLE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Division B--REAL ID Act of 2005; The Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense; The Global War on Terror and Tsunami 
Relief, 2005; PL 109-13, 119 Stat 231, 302 (May 11, 2005) (codified at 
49 USC 30301 note)


CFR Citation:


6 CFR 37, et seq (New)


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 11, 2008.


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security is establishing minimum standards 
for State-issued driver's licenses and identification cards that 
Federal agencies would accept for official purposes on or after May 11, 
2008, in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. This rule establishes 
standards to meet the minimum requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005, 
including: information and security features that must be incorporated 
into each card; application information to establish the identity and 
immigration status of an applicant before a card can be issued; and 
physical security standards for locations where driver's licenses and 
applicable identification cards are issued.


Statement of Need:


 Information and features that must appear on the face of the 
license, and inclusion of a common machine readable portion of a 
driver's license or identification card;


 Presentation and verification of information an applicant must 
provide before a license may be issued, including evidence that the 
applicant is a U.S. citizen or has lawful status in the United States;


 Physical security of locations where licenses are produced, 
the security of document materials and papers from which licenses are 
produced, and the background check of certain employees involved in the 
manufacture and production of licenses; and


 Physical security of the licenses to prevent tampering, 
counterfeiting, and duplication of the documents for a fraudulent 
purpose.


DHS is issuing this rule in consultation with the Department of 
Transportation, other representatives of the Federal government, and 
representatives from many States, as required under the Act.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is needed to assist the Department of Homeland Security 
in meeting its statutory obligation, under section 202 of the Act, to 
certify that States are meeting minimum document requirements and 
issuance standards when issuing driver's licenses and identification 
cards for official federal purposes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/09/07                    72 FR 10820
NPRM Comment Period End         05/08/07
Final Rule                      01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State

[[Page 69826]]

URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Darrell Williams
Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Secretary
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 202 447-3836
RIN: 1601-AA37
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




57. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CHANGES 
TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1324a; PL 104-208


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, March 31, 1998, An interim rule, published September 
30, 1997, makes the minimal changes required by statute. The provisions 
will remain in effect until completion of this rulemaking.


Abstract:


On September 30, 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) was enacted. Section 412(a) of 
IIRIRA requires a reduction in the number of documents that may be 
accepted in the employment verification process. Section 412(d) 
clarifies the applicability of section 274A to the Federal Government. 
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to 
review rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities every 10 years. The Department is conducting 
this review in conjunction with IIRIRA implementation.


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


The lists of documents for employment verification have been 
controversial throughout the 20 years that employer sanctions have been 
in effect. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) first published 
implementing regulations in 1987, the supplementary information noted 
that the list of identity documents had been expanded in response to 
public comment. When the law was new, a consensus emerged that an 
inclusive list of documents would ensure that all persons who are 
eligible to work could easily meet the requirements. As early as 1990, 
there was evidence that some employers found the list confusing. As 
noted in the ``Statement of Need,'' GAO linked employer confusion over 
the ``multiplicity'' of acceptable documents to discrimination against 
authorized workers. DOJ took steps to address this criticism. In July 
1988, DOJ committed to the establishment of a uniform employment 
authorization policy. First, DOJ limited the number and types of 
``paper'' documents on which employment could be authorized. Second, a 
standardized Employment Authorization Document (EAD) I-688B was 
introduced in 1989. In February 1997, a more secure EAD Form (I-766) 
was produced with state-of-the-art technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


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


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (No. 1399 Comment 
    Period End 12/23/93)        11/23/93                    58 FR 61846
NPRM (No. 1339S Comment 
    Period End 07/24/95)        06/22/95                    60 FR 32472
Notice (No. 1713 
    Applications Due 01/
    29/96)                      11/30/95                    60 FR 61630
Appl. Extension Through 
    3/8/96; Notice Pilot 
    Demonstration Program 
    (No. 1713)                  02/06/96                     61 FR 4378
Final Rule (No. 1399E)          09/04/96                    61 FR 46534
Interim Final Rule (No. 
    1818)                       09/30/97                    62 FR 51001
NPRM (No. 1890-97 Comment 
    Period End 04/03/98)        02/02/98                     63 FR 5287
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal

[[Page 69827]]

Additional Information:


The deadline for implementing section 412(a) of IIRIRA was extended to 
March 31, 1998, by Public Law 105-54. This rulemaking has been delayed 
by the need to coordinate implementation with other provisions of 
IIRIRA, by several complex policy and regulatory issues that have taken 
time to resolve, and by the review required by section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and by the need to coordinate policy issues 
with the Border Security Act of 2002 and, more generally, the post-
September 11th environment in which document security is of a paramount 
concern.


Docket No. 1890-97; Public Law 104-208, title 4.


Nos. 1399 and 1399S-94, Control of Employment of Aliens, Supplemental 
Rule; Action for Nos. 1399 and 1399S is canceled as a result of IIRIRA 
requirements.


Docket No. 1399E is an extracted portion of No. 1399, published 
separately to allow for the production of a new, more secure Employment 
Authorization Document.


Docket No. 1713-95, Demonstration Project for Electronic I-9.


Interim Rule No. 1818 was published on September 30, 1997, at 62 FR 
51001 to maintain the status quo as much as possible until the Agency 
completes the more comprehensive document reduction initiative 
designated by No. 1890-97.


CIS 2416-07,NPRM -Employment Verification Document Reduction


Transferred from RIN 1115-AB73


Agency Contact:
Katherine Lotspeich
Chief, Verification Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
3rd Floor, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 358-7771
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




58. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT AND NONIMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS WORKERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1151; 8 USC 1153 to 1154; 8 USC 1182; 8 
USC 1186a; 8 USC 1255


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 204


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule amends U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
regulations regarding the special immigrant and nonimmigrant religious 
worker visa classifications. This rule addresses concerns about the 
integrity of the religious worker program by proposing a petition 
requirement for religious organizations seeking to classify an alien as 
an immigrant or nonimmigrant religious worker. This rule also proposes 
including an on-site inspection for religious organizations to ensure 
the legitimacy of petitioner organizations and employment offers made 
by such organizations.


This rule would also clarify several substantive and procedural issues 
that have arisen since the religious worker category was created. This 
rule proposes new definitions that describe more clearly the regulatory 
requirements, as well as add specific evidentiary requirements for 
petitioning employers and prospective religious workers.


Finally, this rule also proposes to amend how USCIS regulations 
reference the sunset date, the statutory deadline by which special 
immigrant religious workers, other than ministers, must immigrate or 
adjust status to permanent residence, so that regular updates to the 
regulations are not required each time Congress extends the sunset 
date.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to implement the recommendations contained in the 
GAO report Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program, Report 
GAO/NSIAD-99-67 (March 26, 1999). Finally, USCIS wishes to make the 
nonimmigrant religious worker regulations consistent with the rules 
governing the immigrant religious worker category to the extent 
possible, and this rule is necessary to achieve that objective.


The changes proposed in this rule, if implemented, would decrease the 
opportunity for fraud in the religious worker program. Moreover, this 
rulemaking will further enhance the Department's efforts in deterring 
fraud and domestic security.


Summary of Legal Basis:


While this action revises the regulations to reflect Congressional 
extension of this program, this action is not required in order to give 
effect to that extension.


Alternatives:


None, because the Department has agreed to implement the 
recommendations contained in the aforementioned GAO report. Also the 
risk section below provides further reasons why there are no 
alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Currently, there is no petition requirement for religious organizations 
or bona fide affiliated organizations initially seeking a nonimmigrant 
religious worker. The rule would add a petition requirement and DHS 
projects that approximately 15,637 individual organizations will seek 
religious workers each fiscal year. DHS estimates that there will be 
approximately 12,407 Form I-129 filings for the nonimmigrant religious 
worker, and 3,230 for the Form I-360.


 The current fees for the Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, 
and the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 
Immigrant are $190. USCIS is proposing to modify these fees in a 
separate rule. USCIS already has an approved information collection for 
the Form I-129, OMB 1615-0009, and Form I-360, OMB 1615-0020. The rule 
proposes to require petitioning organizations to submit additional 
initial evidence related to their tax-exempt status and an attestation 
regarding the potential religious worker's qualifications and duties, 
etc. Information collection costs, therefore, are increased by these 
requirements, which would increase the existing information collection 
burden by roughly 15 minutes per respondent for the new attestation for 
both the Form I-129 and the Form I-

[[Page 69828]]

360. If there are 15,637 respondents, this increases the information 
collection burden by approximately 3,908 hours, which at $16 per hour 
increases public costs by $62,528. DHS estimates that the Form I-129 
will have 12,407 of the 15,637 estimates filings which would be an 
increase in information collection burden by approximately 3,101 hours 
for the attestation which at $16 per hour increases the public costs 
for the Form I-129 by $49,616. DHS estimates that the Form I-360 will 
have 3,230 of the 15,637 estimates filings (based on the FY05 filings 
stated earlier) which would be an increase in information collection 
burden by approximately 807 hours which at $16 per hour increases the 
public costs for the Form I-360 by 12,912. The total cost of 
petitioning under this proposed rule is estimated to be $6,510,103. 
($5,165,373 for the Form I-129 and $1,344,730 for the Form I-360). In 
addition, changes in filing requirements will increase the frequency of 
filings for extensions or changes of status over a five-year period, 
increasing the total costs to the public to $6,665,503.


 In addition, several respondents are expected to pay the fee required 
under Internal Revenue Regulations of ($750) for obtaining a section 
501(c)(3) status determination letter from that agency. Since this is a 
new requirement, USCIS has no data on which to base an estimate of how 
many will be required to resort to this course of action. Nonetheless, 
even assuming that all 15,637 religious worker petitions expected to be 
received per year are required to pay this fee, the total cost of such 
requests would be under $12 million.


 Together the total cost of these proposed changes are estimated to be 
$18,393,253.


 The cost of the proposed rule's increased information collection is 
outweighed by the overall benefit to the public of an improved system 
for processing religious workers.


 The proposed rule is a vital tool in furthering the protection of the 
public by (1) more clearly defining the requirements and process by 
which religious workers may gain admission to the United States, and 
(2) increasing the ability of DHS to deter or detect fraudulent 
petitions and to investigate and refer matters for prosecution. The 
benefits of decreased fraud and increased national security tend to be 
intangible, thus, the benefits of such reduction in the high level of 
fraud in this program are difficult to quantify. On the other hand, the 
lack of such protections become quite tangible as soon as the lack of 
protections such as those proposed in this rule are manifested in the 
tangible economic or societal damage caused by a recipient of a 
fraudulent religious worker visa.


 This rule amends requirementsfor the special immigrant and 
nonimmigrant religious worker visa classifications. It will not 
significantly change the number of persons who immigrate to the United 
States based on employment-based petitions or temporarily visit based 
on a nonimmigrant visa petition. This rule is intended to benefit the 
public by clarifying definitions associated with the religious worker 
classifications, acceptable evidence, and specific religious worker 
qualification requirements. Balanced against the costs and the 
requirements to collect information, the burden imposed by the proposed 
rule appears to USCIS to be justified by the benefits.


Risks:


Failure to promulgate this rule change leaves the religious worker 
program vulnerable to fraud and compromises DHS and USCIS national 
security goals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (CIS No. 1436-94)          04/25/07                    72 FR 20442
NPRM Comment Period End         06/25/07
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    11/01/07                    72 FR 61821
NPRM Comment Period End         11/16/07
Final Rule                      02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 1436-94


Transferred from RIN 1115-AF12


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Kevin Cummings
Branch Chief, Business and Trade Services
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(ULLICO) 3rd Floor
Office of Program and Regulations Development
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8412
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA16
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



59. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT FOR ALIENS IN T 
AND U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 
USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1224; 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1227; 8 
USC 1252; 8 USC 1252a; 8 USC 1255; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, January 5, 2006, Regulations need to be promulgated 
by July 5, 2006.


Abstract:


This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of severe forms 
of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status and victims 
of certain criminal activity who have been granted U nonimmigrant 
status may apply for adjustment to permanent resident status in 
accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act of 2000, and Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women 
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to establish how an eligible alien with T 
nonimmigrant status can adjust his or her status to that of lawful 
permanent resident. Those with T nonimmigrant status are eligible to be 
granted lawful permanent residency if they can demonstrate they have 
complied with any reasonable

[[Page 69829]]

request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of 
trafficking or that they will face extreme hardship involving unusual 
and severe harm if they were removed from the United States. Those with 
U nonimmigrant status are eligible to be granted lawful permanent 
residence if they can demonstrate continued compliance with law 
enforcement in a criminal investigation or prosecution and continuous 
presence in the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
of 2000.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


While there is no precise formula for determining anticipated costs, 
there will be additional costs for adjudicating applications and 
investigating cases deemed fraudulent. There may be applications that 
will not be approved for a variety of reasons, including failure to 
meet basic adjustment of status requirements. All applications will be 
reviewed and some will require extensive investigation both here and 
abroad to determine whether the applicant has complied with any 
reasonable request for assistance in the investigation and prosecution 
of the acts of trafficking.


The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued 
assistance to trafficked victims and their families, increased 
investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the 
elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities.


Benefits that may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are 
expected to be:


(1) an increase in the number of cases brought forward for 
investigation and/or prosecution;


(2) heightened awareness of trafficking-in-persons issues by the law 
enforcement community; and


(3) enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in 
persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally which may 
begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.


Risks:


Risks associated with the implementation of the congressionally 
mandated new nonimmigrant classification include: increased workload 
for adjudicators which may impact overall efficiency and productivity; 
and increases in fraudulent applications/claims of such victimization 
in order to obtain lawful permanent residence.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              05/00/08
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2134-01


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG21


Agency Contact:
Pearl Chang
Chief, Regulations and Product Management Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
3rd Floor
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8350
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



60.  CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING H-2A NONIMMIGRANTS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1102


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is amending the regulations 
affecting temporary and seasonal agricultural workers within the H-2A 
nonimmigrant category and their U.S. employers. The rule relaxes the 
current limitations on the ability of U.S. employers to petition 
unnamed agricultural workers to come to the United States and makes 
related changes to the evidentiary requirements for such petitions. In 
addition, the rule revises the current limitations on agricultural 
workers' length of stay, including: redefining ``temporary 
employment;'' lengthening the amount of time an agricultural worker may 
remain in the United States after their H-2A nonimmigrant status has 
expired; and shortening the time period that an agricultural worker 
whose H-2A nonimmigrant status has expired must wait before he or she 
is eligible to obtain H-2A nonimmigrant status again. Finally, this 
rule provides for temporary employment authorization to agricultural 
workers seeking an extension of their H-2A nonimmigrant status through 
a different U.S. employer. These changes are necessary to encourage and 
facilitate the lawful employment of foreign agricultural workers.


Statement of Need:


The rule is intended to increase the flexibility, attractiveness and, 
consequently, the use by United States employers of H-2A program in 
lieu of either having to forgo hiring seasonal immigrant labor or hire 
them illegally.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The H-2A nonimmigrant classification applies to aliens who are coming 
to the United States temporarily to perform agricultural labor or 
services of a temporary or seasonal nature. INA sec. 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).


Alternatives:


Make no change.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There is likely to be a small increase in the usage of H-2A visas 
although the increase is impossible to estimate accurately. Also, 
several qualitative changes are expected to result from this rule:


1. Crops will be more likely to be harvested, cows milked, etc. This 
will result in associated economic benefits that are not quantified at 
this point.


2. By increasing flexibility, the quality of life for H-2A immigrants 
will improve.


3. Illegal immigration as measured by the percentage of agricultural 
workers who are unauthorized to work in the United States will decline.

[[Page 69830]]

This rule is not estimated to impose any new or increased costs on the 
Government or public.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS 2428-07


Agency Contact:
Kevin Cummings
Branch Chief, Business and Trade Services
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(ULLICO) 3rd Floor
Office of Program and Regulations Development
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8412
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB65
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




61. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
CONVENTION ON STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, AND WATCHKEEPING 
(STCW) FOR SEAFARERS, 1978 (USCG-2004-17914)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


46 USC 2103; 46 USC Chapters 71 and 73; DHS Delegation 0170.1


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The International Maritime Organization (IMO) comprehensively amended 
the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, 
and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, in 1995. The amendments 
came into force on February 1, 1997. This project implements those 
amendments by revising current rules to ensure that the United States 
complies with their requirements on: The training of merchant mariners, 
the documenting of their qualifications, and watch-standing and other 
arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In 
addition, the Coast Guard has identified the need for additional 
changes to the interim rule issued in 1997. This rulemaking has been 
amended to address the training and assessments necessary to obtain 
merchant mariner credentials, to propose streamlined regulations for 
the mariner credential issuance process, and to make several minor 
editorial and clarification changes throughout title 46 parts 10, 12 
and 15. This project supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal of 
maritime safety. It also supports the goal of the Prevention 
Directorate by reducing deaths and injuries of crew members on domestic 
merchant vessels and eliminating substandard vessels from the navigable 
waters of the United States.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: The IMO adopted amendments to 
the international convention on STCW in 1995. In 1997, we modified the 
regulations to implement these amendments. Since then, however, we 
found that more specificity is needed in the STCW regulations. The need 
for additional clarification resulted in the issuance of several policy 
guidelines over the past 10 years detailing mariner and training 
provider compliance to the STCW regulations. This regulatory action 
proposes to add the specificity from these guidelines, to close other 
regulatory gaps, and to propose some additional changes to the STCW 
regulations.


Statement of Need:


The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations to implement changes 
to its interim rule published on June 26, 1997. These proposed 
amendments go beyond changes found in the interim rule and seek to more 
fully incorporate the requirements of the International Convention on 
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 
1978, as amended (STCW) in the requirements for the credentialing of 
United States merchant mariners. The new changes are primarily 
substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and 
complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2) Incorporate lessons learned 
from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and through 
policy letters and NVICs; (3) Attempt to clarify regulations that have 
generated confusion among USCG offices and industry; and (4) 
Incorporate security-related requirements to ensure compliance with the 
2006 amendments to the STCW Convention.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise or amend 
these regulations is provided under 46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. 
Chapters 71 and 73; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1


Alternatives:


For each proposed change, the Coast Guard has considered various 
alternatives. We considered using policy statements, but they are not 
enforceable. We also considered taking no action, but this does not 
support the Coast Guard's fundamental safety and security mission. 
Additionally, we considered comments made during our 1997 rulemaking to 
formulate our alternatives. When we analyzed issues, such as license 
progression and tonnage equivalency, the alternatives chosen were those 
that most closely met the requirements of STCW.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Based on preliminary analysis, the first-year (initial) costs of this 
rulemaking are $21.5 million or $22.3 million at three or seven percent 
discount rates, respectively. The annual costs of this rulemaking after 
the first year range between $8.3 million and $15.4 million, depending 
upon the year and the discount rate. These cost estimates may change 
through further development of the rulemaking and after consideration 
of public comments. The primary benefit of this rulemaking is to 
specify seafarer training. There are no preliminary quantifiable 
benefit estimates for this rulemaking.


Risks:


The ultimate goal of the regulation is to increase safety and 
facilitate consistency of the United States regulations with 
International Maritime Organization guidelines and requirements.

[[Page 69831]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Meeting               08/02/95                    60 FR 39306
Comment Period End              09/29/95
Notice of Inquiry               11/13/95                    60 FR 56970
Comment Period End              01/12/96
NPRM                            03/26/96                    61 FR 13284
Notice of Public Meetings       04/08/96                    61 FR 15438
Comment Period End              07/24/96
Notice of Intent                02/04/97                     62 FR 5197
Interim Final Rule              06/26/97                    62 FR 34505
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   07/28/97
Supplemental NPRM               02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Old Docket Number CGD 95-062.


Transferred from RIN 2115-AF26


Agency Contact:
Mark Gould
Project Manager, CG-3PSO-1
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1409
RIN: 1625-AA16
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



62. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSELS (USCG-2003-16158)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


46 USC 4502(a) to 4502(d); 46 USC 4505, 4506; 46 USC 6104; 46 USC 
10603; DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(92)


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 28


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend commercial fishing industry vessel 
requirements to enhance maritime safety. The proposed changes would 
affect vessel stability and watertight integrity, carriage of immersion 
suits, training, compliance documentation, and safety equipment.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: Currently, the commercial 
fishing industry remains one of the most hazardous occupations in the 
United States. Many commercial fishing vessels do not meet suggested 
stability requirements or maintain adequate safety training and 
equipment. Without regulatory action, not all individual owners of 
commercial fishing vessels will voluntarily invest in improved safety 
due to the short run uncertainty of individual benefits.


Statement of Need:


Commercial fishing remains one of the most dangerous industries in 
America. The Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988 
(``the Act,'' codified in 46 U.S.C. chapter 45) gives the Coast Guard 
regulatory authority to improve the safety of vessels operating in that 
industry. Although significant reductions in industry deaths were 
recorded after the Coast Guard issued its initial rules under the Act 
in 1991, we believe more deaths and serious injury can be avoided 
through compliance with new regulations in the following areas: vessel 
stability and watertight integrity, vessel maintenance and safety 
equipment including crew immersion suits, crew training and drills, and 
improved documentation of regulatory compliance.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise or amend 
these regulations is provided under 46 U.S.C. 4502, 4505, 4506, 6104, 
10603; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0170.1.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard considered the following alternatives and rejected them 
for the reasons indicated:


Maintaining the regulatory status quo -- rejected because we believe 
additional regulations will have a favorable impact in reducing 
industry deaths;


Requiring the licensing of commercial fishermen and mandating the 
inspection of all industry vessels -- rejected because of the probable 
expense such measures would entail;


Requiring vessel operators and crew members to carry certificates 
issued upon completion of training -- rejected because of questionable 
legal authority, probable high cost, and probable adverse impact on 
industry labor supply; and


Relying on voluntary compliance with Coast Guard guidance -- rejected 
because too few vessels voluntarily comply with existing Coast Guard 
guidance.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule is economically significant with the preliminary 
first-year cost estimate of approximately $107.9 million or $112.1 
million at three or seven percent discount rates, respectively. The 
preliminary annual costs of this rulemaking after the first year range 
between $25.6 million and $47.9 million, depending upon the year and 
the discount rate. These cost estimates may change through further 
development of the rulemaking and after consideration of public 
comments. The primary benefit of this rulemaking is improved safety of 
commercial fishing vessels.


Risks:


Commercial fishing continues to rank at or near the top of the most 
hazardous occupations in the United States. It involves far more 
casualties than other maritime commercial activities regulated by the 
Coast Guard, resulting in a significant proportion of the agency's 
Search and Rescue and marine casualty investigation activities. 
Commercial fishing industry casualties usually result from the complex 
interplay of many factors, and accident reconstruction to determine the 
exact cause of a casualty is usually impossible in the marine 
environment. Although it is therefore difficult or impossible to prove 
a causal connection between our previous issuance of regulations 
affecting this industry and the subsequent decrease in the number of 
industry deaths, we believe those regulations contributed materially to 
creating a culture of safety in which the prevention of casualties is 
more likely to occur. Because we know that a vessel's stability, 
watertight integrity, and overall condition can be critical factors in 
preventing a casualty, and that safety equipment and the crew's ability 
to use that equipment can be critical to surviving a casualty, we 
believe that additional regulations in those areas will strengthen the 
culture of safety and result in further safety gains.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 69832]]

Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Mr. Mike Rosecrans
Project Manager, CG-3PCV-3
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1245
RIN: 1625-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



63. NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT; SOLAS CHAPTER V AMENDMENTS AND ELECTRONIC 
CHART SYSTEM (USCG-2004-19588)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1223(a)(3); 46 USC 3306(a)(1); 46 USC 3703; PL 108-293, sec 410; 
33 USC 1231; DHS Delegation 0170.1


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 164; 46 CFR 32; 46 CFR 96; 46 CFR 159; 46 CFR 165; 46 CFR 167; 
46 CFR 195


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 2007, Prescribe Electronic Charts 
Regulations before January 1, 2007.


Abstract:


This rulemaking project would add new, and clarify existing, navigation 
safety equipment regulations in 33 CFR part 164 including electronic 
chart system regulations. This project would also create a new 46 CFR 
part 165, and a new subpart: 46 CFR part 159, subpart 159.008. These 
new title 46 regulations would provide for specific type-approval 
procedures and quality assurance processes, respectively, to require 
uniform function and capability of equipment across a myriad of 
manufacturers. These changes would reconcile existing domestic safety 
of navigation regulations with SOLAS Chapter V navigation safety 
regulations amended in 2000. By making these revisions to 33 CFR and 46 
CFR, we would fulfill the United States' obligations as an 
International Maritime Organization Contracting Government to implement 
SOLAS Chapter V as amended for U.S. flag vessels and other vessels 
operating on navigable waters of the United States. This project 
supports the Coast Guard's strategic goals of maritime safety and 
mobility.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: The commercial vessel industry 
does not have uniform, nationwide carriage requirements for 
navigational equipment. The NPRM would require certain domestic 
vessels, based on tonnage thresholds, to have navigational equipment 
consistent with the requirements in SOLAS Chapter V for vessels that 
transit beyond the baseline. This provision of the NPRM affects a very 
small population of domestic vessels. This is an effort to close the 
regulatory gap between what is currently required for domestic vessels 
and the requirements contained in SOLAS V in order to harmonize U.S. 
standards with international standards. ECS is required, as a 
congressional mandate, for essentially the same vessel population as 
AIS. This provision applies to both U.S. and foreign vessels that 
transit U.S. waters.


Statement of Need:


The United States is a contracting government to the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) International Convention for the Safety of 
Life at Sea, 1978 (SOLAS) and, thus, has an obligation to incorporate 
SOLAS regulations into domestic regulations for vessels subject to 
SOLAS. The navigation safety regulations in SOLAS Chapter V were 
revised in 2000. Since 2000, the Coast Guard has been ensuring U.S. 
vessels on an international voyage comply with SOLAS primarily through 
our inspection process and policy decisions to minimize the potential 
that a U.S. vessel would be delayed or face penalties in a foreign port 
for non-compliance. In this rulemaking, we are also proposing 
regulations for electronic charts to meet Congress' mandate in section 
410 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (the 
Act), which amended the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and added 
section 1223a to Title 33 of the U.S. Code. Regulations for electronic 
charts and the systems that are used to display them are needed to 
foster continual improvement in the tools that provide situational 
awareness for mariners navigating in U.S. waters.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise or amend 
these regulations is provided in 33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(3) and 1231; 46 
U.S.C. 3306(a)(1) and 3703; Pub. Law 108-293, Section 410; and 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


Alternatives:


Our goals through this rulemaking are to harmonize domestic regulations 
with international standards and, thereby, promote navigation safety 
and ensure that U.S. vessels visiting foreign ports are not subjected 
to scrutiny and possible penalties for being non-compliant. We 
considered the scope of the 2000 SOLAS Chapter V amendments and the 
latitude granted contracting governments with respect to application of 
Chapter V provisions to vessels operating landward of the baseline. We 
determined that existing regulations for navigation equipment are 
sufficient for these vessels. We also considered continuing to grant 
approvals for navigation equipment through the existing policy 
structure instead of regulations in Title 46 CFR. In this case, we 
determined that publishing regulations for equipment approvals is 
critical to maintaining oversight, quality control, and enforceability.


With regard to electronic charts, we considered the latitude granted by 
Congress to determine which vessels, other than those specified in the 
Act, would be required to install and operate electronic charts. We 
considered adopting the same applicability for automatic identification 
systems (AIS) and electronic chart systems (ECS) because the two 
interact in a beneficial and synergistic manner, but determined there 
was a need for different treatment because ECS and AIS have different 
purposes. For example, the utility of AIS may be greater than the 
utility of an ECS for a vessel or platform that is primarily 
stationary.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The initial cost estimate is $3.1 million or $3.2 million in the first 
year and $70.9 million or $76.6 million in the second year at three or 
seven percent discount rates, respectively. The annual costs after the 
first two years of implementation range between $9.0 million and $13.3 
million, depending upon the year and the discount rate. These estimates 
are based on technology that is currently available for ECS. These 
estimates may change through further development of the rulemaking and 
after consideration of public comments. The primary benefit of this 
NPRM is navigational and situational awareness. There are no 
preliminary quantifiable benefit estimates for this rulemaking.

[[Page 69833]]

Risks:


By implementing SOLAS Chapter V amendments and the electronic charts 
provisions of the Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, navigation 
equipment requirements will be further standardized and improved as the 
Coast Guard fulfills these international and Congressional mandates. 
Consequently, we expect some reduction in the risks of loss of life and 
property associated with navigation safety errors, and a reduction in 
the risk of sanctions being imposed by foreign governments against 
visiting-U.S. vessels for non-compliance with SOLAS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
LCDR James Rocco
Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems, Navigation Standards 
Division CG-3PWN-2
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1565

Ms. Dolores Mercier
Project Manager, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Systems 
Engineering Division CG-3PSE-3
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1381
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA99
RIN: 1625-AA91
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



64. VESSEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICES OF ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE, AND 
AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (USCG-2005-21869)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1225; 33 USC 1231; 46 USC 3716; 46 USC 8502 and ch 
701; sec 102 of PL 107-295


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 164; 33 CFR 165


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice of Arrival 
and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) 
requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the Coast 
Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our ability 
to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve navigation 
safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness.


The NOAD portion of this rulemaking would expand the applicability of 
the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered 
below the current 300 gross tons, require that a notice of departure be 
submitted for all vessels required to submit a notice of arrival, and 
mandate electronic submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel 
Movement Center. The AIS portion of this rulemaking will expand current 
AIS carriage requirements for the population identified in the Marine 
Transportation Security Act of 2002.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: The NOAD and AIS portions of the 
NPRM would attempt to close regulatory gaps by having smaller vessels 
submit NODs as well as NOAs and to do this electronically. AIS would 
help to track and identify the affected vessels (including enhancing 
situational awareness) and provide synergy with the NOAD portion of 
this rulemaking. The mandate for AIS is provided by the MTSA 2002.


Statement of Need:


We do not have a current mechanism in place to capture vessel, crew, 
passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels less than or equal 
to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports 
unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or are 
arriving at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District. The lack of NOA 
information on this large and diverse population of vessels represents 
a substantial gap in our maritime domain awareness (MDA). We can 
minimize this gap and enhance MDA by expanding the applicability of the 
NOAD regulation beyond vessels greater than 300 GT, cover all foreign 
commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from a 
foreign port; and enhance maritime domain awareness by tracking them 
(and others) with AIS. There is no current Coast Guard requirement for 
vessels to submit notification of departure information. This 
information is necessary in order to expand our MDA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is based on congressional authority provided in the 
Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


Our goal is to increase MDA and to identify anomalies by correlating 
vessel AIS data with NOAD data. NOAD and AIS information from a greater 
number of vessels would provide even greater MDA than the proposed 
rule. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS to even more vessels, but we 
determined we needed additional legislative authority to expand AIS 
beyond what we propose in this rulemaking; and that it was best to 
combine additional NOAD expansion with future AIS expansion.


Although not in conjunction with a proposed rule, the Coast Guard 
sought comment regarding expansion of AIS carriage to other waters and 
other vessels not subject to the current requirements (68 FR 39355-56, 
and 39370, July 1, 2003; USCG 2003-14878). Those comments were reviewed 
and considered in drafting this rule and will become part of this 
docket.


To fulfill our agency obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS 
reports and NOADs from vessels identified in this rulemaking that 
currently are not required to provide this information. Policy or other 
non-binding statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of 
these vessels would not produce the information required to 
sufficiently enhance our MDA to produce the information required to 
fulfill our Agency obligations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The cost estimate in the first year of implementation is $20.6 million 
rounded at either seven or three percent discount rates. The cost 
estimate in the second year of

[[Page 69834]]

implementation is $74.9 million or $78.0 million at seven or three 
percent discount rates, respectively. The annual costs after the first 
two years of implementation range between $6.7 million and $54.5 
million, depending upon the year (of replacement) and the discount 
rate. These estimates are based in part on available technology. The 
primary benefit of this proposed rule is to enhance maritime security 
and safety through navigational and situational awareness. Based on 
analysis of past marine casualties and potential avoided injuries, the 
average annual quantifiable benefit from this rulemaking is 
approximately $1.5 million (non-discounted). We also estimated there to 
be additional barrels of oil not spilled by this rulemaking. These 
estimates may change through further development of the rulemaking and 
after consideration of public comments.


Risks:


Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways, and coastal 
approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against our U.S. 
Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a disastrous impact on 
global shipping, international trade, and the world economy. By 
improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to identify potential 
terrorists coming to the United States while their vessel is far at sea 
and to coordinate appropriate responses and intercepts before the 
vessel reaches a U.S. port, this rulemaking would contribute 
significantly to the expansion of MDA, and consequently is instrumental 
in addressing the threat posed by terrorist actions against the MTS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Legal Deadline: With regard to the legal deadline, we have indicated in 
past notices and rulemaking documents, and it remains the case, that we 
have worked to coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with 
the development of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 
39355-56 and 39370, July 1, 2003).


Agency Contact:
LT Julie Miller
Project Manager, Office of Vessel Activities, Foreign and Offshore 
Vessel Activities Div. CG-3PCV-2
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1244

Jorge Arroyo
Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems CG-3PWN
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1563
RIN: 1625-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



65.  INCREASING PASSENGER WEIGHT STANDARD FOR PASSENGER VESSELS 
(USCG 2005-22732)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1321(j); 43 USC 1333; 46 USC 2103,3205,3306,3307,3703, 6101; 49 
USC App. 1804; EO 111735; EO 12234; Dept of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 115; 46 CFR 116; 46 CFR 122; 46 CFR 170; 46 CFR 171; 46 CFR 176; 
46 CFR 178; 46 CFR 185; 46 CFR 114; 46 CFR 175; 46 CFR 179


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Coast Guard proposes developing a rule that addresses both the 
stability calculations and the environmental operating requirements for 
certain domestic passenger vessels. The proposed rule would address the 
outdated per-person weight averages that are currently used in 
stability calculations for certain domestic passenger vessels. In 
addition, the proposed rule would add environmental operating 
requirements for domestic passenger vessels that could be adversely 
affected by sudden inclement weather. This rulemaking would increase 
passenger safety by significantly reducing the risk of certain types of 
passenger vessels capsizing due either to passenger overloading or 
operating these vessels in hazardous weather conditions.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: Regulations need to be updated 
to reflect current passenger weights. Standards are often set because 
owners and operators cannot internalize the benefits of appropriate 
safety standards. The commercial passenger vessel industry is not 
capable of voluntarily establishing uniform, nationwide standards for 
passenger weight. Failure to update the standards to reflect accurate, 
current passenger weights places passenger vessels at greater risk of 
capsizing.


This NPRM would support the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime 
safety.


Statement of Need:


Coast Guard regulations use an assumed average weight per person to 
calculate the maximum number of passengers and crew permitted on each 
deck. This assumed weight was established in the 1960s and is 160 
pounds per person, except that vessels operating exclusively on 
protected waters carrying a mix of men, women, and children may use an 
average of 140 pounds. A recent report from the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) program of the National Center 
for Health Statistics shows that there has been a significant increase 
in the average weights of the U.S. population between 1960 and 2002. 
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is updating the average passenger weight 
used in stability tests and evaluations for those vessels that may be 
at risk of capsizing due to excessive passenger weight.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise or amend 
these regulations is provided under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 43 U.S.C. 1333; 
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703, and 6101; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; 
E.O. 111735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 743; E.O. 12234; 
45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard advised mariners through a Federal Register notice on 
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24732) to voluntarily follow revised procedures 
to account for increased passenger weight when calculating the maximum 
number of persons permitted on board.

[[Page 69835]]

The notice advised owners and operators of all pontoon vessels, and 
small passenger vessels not more than 65 feet in length, that met 
simplified stability requirements using either 140 or 160 pounds, to 
voluntarily restrict the maximum number of passengers permitted on 
board by:


(1) Changing passenger capacity to a reduced number by dividing the 
total test weight by 185 pounds; or


(2) Changing passenger capacity to a reduced number equal to 140 
divided by 185 times the current number of passengers permitted to be 
carried. If the total test weight was based on 160 pounds per person, 
the multiplier may be taken as 160 divided by 185; or


(3) Weighing persons and effects at dockside prior to boarding and 
limiting the actual load to the total test weight used in the vessel's 
SST or PSST.


On November 2, 2006, the Coast Guard published a second notice in the 
Federal Register clarifying the environmental conditions appropriate 
for operation of small passenger vessels (71 FR 64546). Guidance, 
though, does not carry the force of law. A regulatory solution is 
necessary to enact changes to the mandatory passenger weight 
limitations.


The Coast Guard also considered the option of directing Officers in 
Charge, Marine Inspection, pursuant to 46 CFR 178.210(c), to use a 
current assumed average passenger weight in stability tests for vessels 
under 65 feet in length. As with guidance, though, a policy directive 
is not enforceable and a regulatory change is necessary. A notice and 
comment rulemaking will be necessary for a comprehensive regulatory 
change that is based on the views of all interested parties.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The first-year implementation cost estimate is $4.5 million or $4.7 
million at three or seven percent discount rates, respectively. The 
annual costs after the first year range between $1.5 million and $2.8 
million, depending upon the year and the discount rate. These cost 
estimates may change through further development of the rulemaking and 
after consideration of public comments. The anticipated benefit is 
aligning regulation with the actual average passenger weight. We 
anticipate the revised weight standards would improve stability and 
reduce the risk of capsizings due either to passenger overloading or 
operating certain vessels in hazardous weather conditions, but have not 
assessed the extent of the risk reduction.


Risks:


Passenger vessel capsizings can involve significant loss of life and 
property. This rulemaking would reduce the risk of such incidents by 
updating the average passenger weight used in stability tests and 
evaluations of certain vessels. Consequently, this rulemaking would 
increase passenger safety and supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal 
of maritime safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William Peters
Project Manager, Office of Design & Engineering Standards, Systems 
Engineering Division (CG-3PSE-2)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1371
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



66.  TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL (TWIC); 
CARD READER REQUIREMENTS (USCG-2007-28915)

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1226, 1231; 46 USC Chapter 701; 50 USC 191, 192; EO 12656


CFR Citation:


33 CFR Subchapter H


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 2008, SAFE Port Act, codified at 46 USC 
70105(k).


Abstract:


The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader requirements for 
maritime facilities and vessels to be used in combination with TSA's 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential.


Statement of Need:


The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 explicitly 
required the issuance of a biometric transportation security card to 
all U.S. merchant mariners and to workers requiring unescorted access 
to secure areas of facilities and vessels. On May 22, 2006, the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard 
published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to carry out this 
statute, proposing a Transportation Worker Identification Credential 
(TWIC) Program where TSA conducts security threat assessments and 
issues identification credentials, while the Coast Guard requires 
integration of the TWIC into the access control systems of vessels, 
facilities and OCS facilities. This would have included the use of 
biometric TWIC readers by vessels, facilities and OCS facilities. Based 
upon comments received during the public comment period, TSA and the 
Coast Guard bifurcated the TWIC rule. The final rule, published in 
January, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC as a 
``flash pass'' at access control points.


The requirement for integration of the TWIC into access control systems 
via TWIC card readers was deliberately excluded from the first TWIC 
Final Rule due to technology, operational and economic feasibility 
concerns. While the private sector has employed biometrics for a number 
of years in controlled, office-like environments, very few studies have 
examined how biometric card readers will withstand the comparatively 
harsh environments of vessels and facilities. The standard for the 
design and issuance of the TWIC did not provide for the card to be read 
without inserting it into an open slot reader, which commenters felt 
was operationally insufficient for the rigors of application in the 
maritime environment. Also, several commenters stated that the cost of 
biometric card readers would be extremely detrimental for small 
entities. With this in mind, Congress enacted several statutory 
requirements within the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) 
Port Act of 2006 to guide regulations pertaining to TWIC card readers.

[[Page 69836]]

This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and to 
complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By 
requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast 
Guard will further enhance port security and improve access control 
measures.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, 
revise or amend these regulations are provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 
1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 
3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


The SAFE Port Act requires a final rule within two years of 
``commencement'' of the TWIC pilot program. The SAFE Port Act also 
requires that the pilot program begin within 180 days from signature of 
the Act (October 13, 2006). This means our final rule must be 
promulgated by April of 2009.


Alternatives:


Alternative 1: Use several, if not all, of the concepts introduced in 
the first TWIC rule NPRM to address card reader requirements. This 
would mean that every facility and vessel regulated by 33 CFR 
Subchapter H would need to purchase or have access to at least one 
reader.


Alternative 2: Don't implement a reader requirement, and instead have 
the Coast Guard do spot checks on regulated facilities and vessels 
using hand-held biometric card readers, while TWICs are used as flash 
passes.


Alternative 3: Require the use of card readers at regulated facilities 
and vessels based upon the risk of an access control related 
Transportation Security Incident taking place.


No non-regulatory alternatives are available at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Coast Guard and TSA are in the process of revising earlier reader 
technology and compliance cost analysis from the Regulatory Evaluation 
used in support of the 2006 NPRM. Based on the 2006 Regulatory 
Evaluation, the average initial costs for affected owners and operators 
of vessels and facilities to acquire and install reader technology was 
approximately $225.5 million in the first year (non- discounted) with 
technology replacement occurring every five years. Based on public 
comments and mandates from the SAFE Port Act, we plan to revise the 
2006 cost estimates associated with reader technology by incorporating 
data and findings from the pilot program. The pilot program discussed 
in the SAFE Port Act focuses on business processes, measurements of 
available technology, and operational impacts of readers. As of the 
publication date of this Regulatory Plan, data has not been collected 
from the pilot program. The Coast Guard and TSA anticipate reader 
technology deployed at vessels and facilities will further enhance port 
security and improve access control measures.


Risks:


During the rulemaking process, we will take into account the various 
conditions in which TWIC card readers may be employed. For example, we 
will consider the types of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC 
readers, locations of secure and restricted areas, operational 
constraints, and need for accessibility. As part of this consideration, 
we are using the analytical hierarchy approach to incorporate Maritime 
Security Risk Analysis Model maximum consequence data, criticality, and 
TWIC utility factors to determine the level of TWIC authentication 
necessary at each type of facility and vessel. This will tie TWIC 
reader use requirements with facility and vessel risk, criticality, and 
TWIC utility. Recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, 
and the requirement for data exchanges (i.e. TWIC hotlist) between TSA 
and vessel and facility owners/operators will also be addressed in this 
rulemaking.


The MTSA of 2002 further required the TWIC to be applicable to vessel 
pilots (46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2)(C)). Most vessel pilots are already 
included in the first TWIC Final Rule as many hold federally issued 
merchant mariner credentials. In this proposed rulemaking, we will 
propose extending the TWIC applicability to vessel pilots holding only 
state commissions or credentials. Similarly, MTSA required the TWIC to 
be applicable to ``an individual engaged on a towing vessel that 
pushes, pulls, or hauls alongside a tank vessel'' (46 U.S.C. 
70105(b)(2)(D)). While we have included individuals working on towing 
vessels subject to 33 CFR Part 104 in the first TWIC Final Rule, we 
will propose extending TWIC applicability to those individuals who work 
on towing vessels that push, pull, or haul alongside a tank vessel.


Another vital part of this rulemaking will be the vessel crew size 
limitations described in the SAFE Port Act. We are currently evaluating 
minimum crew size options as a component of proposed electronic reader 
requirements aboard vessels.


Finally, we will also revisit the concept of recurring unescorted 
access which was introduced in the first TWIC rule. As stated in the 
NPRM, published on May 22, 2006, ``As a result of this desire to 
provide flexibility, we propose the concept of `recurring unescorted 
access,' which is intended to allow an individual to enter on a 
continual basis, without repeating the personal identity verification 
piece.'' We will examine the risks and benefits of this provision and 
propose an appropriate solution for vessels and facilities with small 
contingents of regular employees.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
LCDR Jonathan H. Maiorine
Project Manager (CG-3PCP-2)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1133
Fax: 202 372-1906
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02, Related to 1652-AA41
RIN: 1625-AB21
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




67. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ACTIVITIES (USCG-1998-3868)

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 69837]]

Legal Authority:


43 USC 1333(d)(1); 43 USC 1348(c); 43 USC 1356; PL 109-347, sec. 109; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 140 to 147


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, April 11, 2007, Sec 109, Safe Port Act, P.L. 109-347.


The SAFE Port Act requires that, not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update and finalize 
the rulemaking on notice of arrival for foreign vessels on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. To promulgate those rules as expeditiously as 
possible, the Coast Guard has inserted them into this rulemaking 
project.


Abstract:


The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for workplace safety and 
health, other than for matters generally related to drilling and 
production that are regulated by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), 
on facilities and vessels engaged in the exploration for, or 
development or production of, minerals on the OCS. This project would 
revise the regulations on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities to: 
1) Add new requirements for fixed OCS facilities for lifesaving, fire 
protection, training, hazardous materials used as stores, and 
accommodation spaces; 2) require foreign vessels engaged in OCS 
activities to comply with requirements similar to those imposed on U.S. 
vessels similarly engaged; 3) allow all mobile inland drilling units to 
operate on the OCS out to a defined boundary line if they meet 
requirements for lifesaving, firefighting, and operations similar to 
those for fixed OCS facilities; and 4) add a Congressionally mandated 
component concerning notices of arrivals of foreign vessels on the OCS. 
This project would affect the owners and operators of facilities and 
vessels engaged in offshore activities associated with the exploration 
for, development of, or production of the resources of the OCS. In 
order to increase maritime domain awareness and security on the OSC, 
and pursuant to the SAFE Port Act (Pub. Law 109-347), this rule would 
also establish notice of arrival requirements for foreign vessels 
arriving on the OCS. It supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal of 
marine safety and environmental protection.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: Regulations need to be updated 
to account for technological change. The original regulations were 
intended for OCS activity in shallower water and closer to land. The 
regulations also needed to better reflect current industry practices. A 
few owners and operators may not be able to internalize the benefits of 
these safety measures. Further, the diverse industry on the OCS is not 
capable of establishing uniform regulations.


Statement of Need:


The last major revision of Coast Guard OCS regulations occurred in 
1982. At that time, the offshore industry was not as technologically 
advanced as it is today. Offshore activities were in relatively shallow 
water near land, where help was readily available during emergency 
situations. The equipment regulations required only basic equipment, 
primarily for lifesaving appliances and hand-held portable fire 
extinguishers. Since 1982, the requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, 
subchapter N, have not kept pace with the changing offshore technology 
or the safety problems it creates as OCS activities extend to deeper 
water (10,000 feet) and move farther offshore (150 miles). This 
rulemaking reassesses all of our current OCS regulations in light of 
past experiences and new improvements in order to help make the OCS a 
safer workplace. Additionally, the rule would comply with Section 109 
of the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347)by including notice of arrival 
requirements for foreign vessels operating on the OCS.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise or amend 
these regulations is provided under 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1), 
1347(c), 1348(c), 1356; Public Law 109-347, Section 109; and Department 
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 145.100 also issued 
under 14 U.S.C. 664 and 31 U.S.C. 9701.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard considered filling the shortfall in existing OCS 
regulations by extending the current vessel and MODU regulations. This 
approach was rejected after concluding that the differences between 
fixed and floating units made this approach impractical.


We also considered requiring compliance with industry standards. Those 
standards, though, do not cover all of the areas needing regulation. 
The new rule would adopt available consensus standards where 
appropriate.


Nonregulatory alternatives, such as agency policy documents and 
voluntary acceptance of industry standards were also considered. They 
were also rejected, however, because enforceable regulations are 
necessary in order to carry out the relevant statutes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The first-year implementation cost estimate is $64 million or $67 
million at three or seven percent discount rates, respectively. The 
annual costs after the first year range between $7.5 million and $19.2 
million, depending upon the year and the discount rate. These cost 
estimates may change through further development of the rulemaking and 
after consideration of public comments. The anticipated benefit is to 
improve safety for OCS activities and align current regulations with 
current industry practice. Based on analysis of past marine casualties, 
the average annual benefit estimate from this rulemaking is $1.3 
million (non-discounted).


Risks:


The extensive revisions to health and safety requirements for OCS units 
in this rule would substantially reduce the risk of injury or illness 
on those units. Additionally, a terrorist attack against a large OCS 
production facility could have a significant negative effect on the 
U.S. economy. By improving the ability of the Coast Guard to identify 
potential terrorists bound for the OCS and coordinate appropriate 
responses before they arrive, this rulemaking will expand maritime 
domain awareness and reduce the risk of terrorist actions against OCS 
units.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments            06/27/95                    60 FR 33185
Comment Period End              09/25/95
NPRM                            12/07/99                    64 FR 68416
NPRM Correction                 02/22/00                     65 FR 8671
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    03/16/00                    65 FR 14226
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    06/30/00                    65 FR 40559
NPRM Comment Period End         11/30/00
Interim Final Rule              02/00/08
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/00/08
Final Rule                      03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 69838]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket Numbers: The notice of request for comments published June 27, 
1995, was assigned Coast Guard docket number 95-016. Following the 
request for comments, that docket was terminated. This project 
continues under Docket No. USCG-1998-3868 and RIN 1625-AA18.


Transferred from RIN 2115-AF39


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
James Magill
Project Manager, CG-3PSO-2
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1414
RIN: 1625-AA18
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




68. ADVANCE INFORMATION ON PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ARRIVING AND DEPARTING THE 
UNITED STATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 19 USC 58b; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1433; 19 USC 1436; 19 USC 
1448; 19 USC 1459; 19 USC 1590; 19 USC 1594; 19 USC 1623 to 1624; 19 
USC 1644 to 1644a


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 122


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations to 
require that the pilot of any private aircraft arriving in the United 
States from a foreign location or departing the United States for 
foreign provide an advance electronic transmission of information to 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding each individual traveling 
onboard the aircraft. In addition, the rule would add data elements to 
the existing notice of arrival requirements and proposes a new notice 
of departure requirement. The notice of arrival and notice of departure 
information would be required to be submitted to CBP via an approved 
electronic data interchange system in the same transmission as the 
corresponding arrival or departure manifest information. The means of 
transmission for these data elements must be via an electronic data 
interchange system approved by CBP. Under the proposed rule, the 
transmission of the data must be accomplished so that CBP receives the 
data prior to the private aircraft departing from a foreign airport, 
and prior to a private aircraft departing a United States airport for a 
foreign port or place.


Statement of Need:


Current regulations do not provide CBP the capability to assess 
potential threats posed by private aircraft entering and departing the 
United States. Private aircraft currently are not required to 
electronically transmit to CBP advance notice of arrival through an 
approved electronic data interchange system. In addition, private 
aircraft are not currently required to electronically transmit 
identifying information for all individuals onboard the aircraft 
(manifest data) before arriving in or departing from the United States. 
The existing regulations lack clarity in the procedures for requesting 
permission to land at landing rights airports. Private aircraft are 
also currently not required to obtain clearance or provide notice of 
departure prior to departing the United States.


To adequately and accurately assess potential threats posed by private 
aircraft entering and departing the United States, CBP needs sufficient 
and timely information about the impending arrival or departure of a 
private aircraft, the passengers and crew onboard, and clear procedures 
regarding landing rights and departure clearance. Without these tools, 
CBP does not currently have the capability to perform risk assessments 
on passengers traveling on private aircraft.


Under this rule, CBP would receive advance electronic information of 
notice of arrival combined with passenger manifest data for those 
aboard private aircraft that arrive in and depart from the United 
States. This would provide critical information in a sufficient time to 
fully pre-screen information on all individuals intending to travel 
onboard private aircraft to or from the United States. Moreover, these 
changes would enable CBP to minimize potential threats posed by private 
aircraft by identifying high-risk individuals and aircraft and allowing 
CBP to coordinate with airport personnel and domestic or foreign 
government authorities to take appropriate action when warranted by a 
threat.


This rule serves to provide the nation, private aircraft operators, and 
the international traveling public, additional security from the threat 
of terrorism and enhance CBP's ability to carry out its border 
enforcement mission.


Alternatives:


This proposed rule is not economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866. Therefore, CBP did not consider regulatory alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Currently, pilots of private aircraft must submit information regarding 
themselves, their aircraft, and any passengers prior to arrival into 
the United States from a foreign airport. Depending on the location of 
the foreign airport, the pilot provides the arrival information 1 hour 
prior to crossing the U.S. coastline or border (areas south of the 
United States) or during the flight (other areas). The information that 
would now be required for the pilot is similar to what is already 
required; it would now need to be submitted earlier (60 minutes prior 
to departure). The information that would now be required for 
passengers is more extensive that what is currently required and would 
also have to be submitted earlier. No notice of departure information 
is currently required for private aircraft departing the United States 
for a foreign airport.


CBP estimates that 138,559 private aircraft landed in the United States 
in 2006 based on current notice of arrival data. These aircraft 
collectively carried 455,324 passengers; including the 138,559 pilots 
of the aircraft, this totals 593,883 individuals arriving in the United 
States aboard private aircraft. CBP estimates that approximately two-
thirds are U.S. citizens and the remaining one-third is comprised of 
non-U.S. citizens.


CBP does not currently compile data for departures, as there are 
currently no

[[Page 69839]]

requirements for private aircraft departing the United States. For this 
analysis, we assume that the number of departures is the same as the 
number of arrivals.


Thus, we estimate that 140,000 private aircraft arrivals and 140,000 
departures will be affected annually as a result of the rule. While the 
current data elements for pilots are very similar to the proposed 
requirements, the data elements for passengers are more extensive. 
Based on the current information collected and accounting for proposed 
changes in the data elements, CBP estimates that one submission, which 
includes the arrival information and the passenger manifest data, will 
require 15 minutes of time (0.25 hours) to complete.


Currently, private aircraft arriving from areas south of the United 
States must provide advance notice of arrival at least 1 hour before 
crossing the U.S. coastline or border. There are no such timing 
requirements for other areas. Thus, some pilots and their passengers 
may decide that in order to comply with the new requirements, including 
submitting information through eAPIS and waiting for a response from 
CBP, they must convene at the airport earlier than they customarily 
would.


To estimate the costs associated with the time required to input data 
into eAPIS, we use the value of an hour of time as reported in the 
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) document on critical values, 
$28.60. This represents a weighted cost for business and leisure 
travelers in the air environment. The cost to submit advance notice of 
arrival data through eAPIS would be approximately $1 million (140,000 
arrivals * 0.25 hours * $28.60 per hour). Similarly, costs to submit 
advance notice of departure data would be $1 million, for a total cost 
to submit the required data elements of $2 million annually.


To estimate the costs of arriving earlier than customary, we again use 
the value of time of $28.60 per hour. As noted previously, we assume 
that 301,000 pilots and passengers may choose to arrive 0.25 hours 
earlier than customary. This would result in a cost of approximately $2 
million for arrivals and $2 million for departures, a total of $4 
million annually (301,000 individuals * 0.25 hours * $28.60 per hour * 
2).


Thus, the total annual cost of the proposed rule is expected to be $6 
million. Over 10 years, this would total a present value cost of $47 
million at a 7 percent discount rate ($55 million at a 3 percent 
discount rate).


As noted previously, the benefit of this proposed rule is enabling CBP 
to identify high-risk individuals and aircraft prior to their arrival 
in the United States, thus allowing CBP to coordinate with airport 
personnel and government authorities to take the action warranted by 
the threat. CBP would receive more information earlier to better assess 
risks of specific flights to national security and to take appropriate 
action in order to prevent security threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/18/07                    72 FR 53393
NPRM Comment Period End         11/19/07
Final Rule                      02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 1515-AD10


Agency Contact:
Barbara Connolly
Program Officer
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1694

Glen E. Vereb
Chief, Entry Procedures and Carriers Branch
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 572-8730
RIN: 1651-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCBP



69. IMPORTER SECURITY FILING AND ADDITIONAL CARRIER REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 109-347, Section 203; 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 
2071 note; 46 USC 60105


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend DHS regulations to provide that Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) must receive, by way of a CBP-approved 
electronic data interchange system, additional information from 
carriers and importers pertaining to cargo before the cargo is brought 
into the United States by vessel. The information required is that 
which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be 
identified so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and 
security pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. The 
amendment is specifically intended to implement the provisions of 
section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 
2006.


Statement of Need:


Vessel carriers are currently required to transmit certain manifest 
information by way of the CBP Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24 
hours prior to lading of containerized and non-exempt break bulk cargo 
at a foreign port. For the most part, this is the ocean carrier's or 
non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC)'s cargo declaration. CBP 
analyzes this information to generate its risk assessment for targeting 
purposes.


Internal and external government reviews have concluded that more 
complete advance shipment data would produce even more effective and 
more vigorous cargo risk assessments. In addition, pursuant to Section 
203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. 
L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP must promulgate 
regulations to require the electronic transmission of additional data 
elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate 
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States 
by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign 
seaports.


Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the SAFE 
Port Act, CBP is proposing to require the electronic transmission of 
additional data for improved high-risk targeting. Some of these data 
elements are being required from carriers (Container Status Messages 
and Vessel Stow Plan) and

[[Page 69840]]

others are being required from ``importers,'' as that term is defined 
for purposes of the proposed regulations.


This rule will improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities, while at the same time, enabling the agency to facilitate 
the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the 
United States. The information will assist CBP in increasing the 
security of the global trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat 
to the United States and world economy.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pursuant to Section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every 
Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP 
must promulgate regulations to require the electronic transmission of 
additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting, including 
appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the 
United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at 
foreign seaports.


Alternatives:


CBP considered requiring an importer security filing for bulk cargo as 
well as for containerized and break-bulk cargo. If bulk cargo were not 
exempt from an importer security filing, the annualized costs of the 
rule would be increased by approximately $10 million.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As of the projected effective date of the regulation, CBP estimates 
that approximately 11 million import shipments conveyed by 1,200 
different carrier companies operating 50,000 unique voyages or vessel-
trips to the United States will be subject to the rule. Annualized 
costs range from $390 million to $630 million (7 percent discount rate 
over 10 years).


The annualized cost range results from varying assumptions about the 
estimated security filing transaction costs or fees charged to the 
importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays, 
and the estimated costs to carriers for transmitting additional data to 
CBP.


Ideally, the quantification and monetization of the benefits of this 
regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a 
successful terrorist attack, absent this regulation, and the 
incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the 
regulation. We would then multiply the change by an estimate of the 
value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary 
estimate of direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a 
lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists 
prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction 
attributable to this rule. As a result, CBP undertakes a ``break-even'' 
analysis to inform decision-makers of the necessary incremental change 
in the probability of such an event occurring that would result in 
direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule.


Our analysis finds that the incremental costs of this regulation are 
relatively small compared to the median value of a shipment of goods 
despite the rather large absolute estimate of present value cost.


The proposed regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit, 
particularly for shipments consolidated in containers. For such 
shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex and the importer 
has less control of the flow of goods and associated security filing 
information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be consolidating multiple 
shipments from one or more shippers in a container destined for one or 
more buyers or consignees. In order to ensure that the security filing 
data is provided by the shippers to the importers (or their designated 
agents) and is then transmitted to and accepted by CBP in advance of 
the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may advance their cut-off times for 
receipt of shipments and associated security filing data.


These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or 
carrier from having to unpack or unload a container in the event the 
security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is 
inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may 
require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP approval of their 
security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the 
container, before the container is sealed, or before the container is 
delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely 
have to increase the times they hold their goods as inventory and thus 
incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these 
advanced cut-off times imposed by their foreign consolidators. The high 
end of the cost ranges presented assumes an initial supply chain delay 
of 1 day (24 hours) for the first year of implementation (2008) and a 
delay of 12 hours for years 2 through 10 (2009--2017).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Richard DiNucci
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202-344-2513
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1651-AA70
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCBP

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




70. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR TRAVELERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES AT SEA 
AND LAND PORTS-OF-ENTRY FROM WITHIN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


PL 108-458; PL 109-295


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 235


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 1, 2009.


Abstract:


Amendment to require U.S. citizens who previously were exempt from 
presenting a passport or other authorized travel document to present 
such documents that denote identity and citizenship when entering the 
United States. The amendment would require that United States citizens 
and nonimmigrant aliens from Canada,

[[Page 69841]]

Bermuda and Mexico entering the United States at sea and land ports-of-
entry from Western Hemisphere countries would be required to present an 
authorized travel document that denotes identity and citizenship in 
circumstances where travel was previously permitted without such a 
document.


Statement of Need:


The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) will reduce 
vulnerabilities identified in the final report of the National 
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as 
the 9/11 Commission. WHTI is intended not only to enhance security 
efforts at the borders, but is also intended to expedite the movement 
of legitimate travel within the Western Hemisphere.


The land border, in particular, presents complex operational 
challenges, in that a tremendous amount of traffic must be processed in 
a short amount of time. For example, there are often several passengers 
in a vehicle, and multiple vehicles arriving at one time at each land 
border port-of-entry. Many of the people encountered crossing at the 
land border ports-of-entry are repeat crossers, who travel back and 
forth across the border numerous times a day.


The historical absence of standard travel document requirements for the 
travel of Canadian and U.S. citizens across our northern and southern 
borders has resulted in the current situation, where a multiplicity of 
documents can be presented at ports-of-entry by Canadian and U.S. 
travelers. As a result, those individuals who seek to enter the United 
States or Canada illegally or who pose a potential threat could falsely 
declare themselves as U.S. or Canadian citizens. They can do this 
through several methods: presenting fraudulent documents that cannot be 
validated; presenting facially valid documentation that cannot be 
validated against the identity of the holder; assuming the identity of 
the legitimate authentic document holder; or undocumented false claims. 
These same vulnerabilities exist for individuals purporting to be U.S. 
citizens crossing back and forth across the southern border with 
Mexico.


U.S. travel document requirements for Mexican nationals already 
addressed most of these vulnerabilities prior to the passage of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). 
Generally, Mexican nationals are required to present either a Mexican 
passport with a visa or a biometric Border Crossing Card (BCC) when 
entering the United States. Mexican nationals can also apply for 
membership in DHS Trusted Traveler Programs such as FAST (Free and 
Secure Trade) and SENTRI (Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid 
Inspection).


The current documents presented by U.S., Canadian, and Bermudian 
citizens arriving from within the Western Hemisphere vary widely in 
terms of the security and reliability as evidence of identity, status, 
and nationality. This variety poses challenges for accurate identity 
and admissibility determinations by border officials and has been 
identified as a security vulnerability for cross-border travel between 
these countries. It is recognized that national passports of Canada, 
Mexico, Bermuda (whether Bermudian or British passports) and the United 
States do currently, and will continue to, provide reliable evidence of 
identity and nationality for the purposes of cross-border travel.


Standardizing documentation requirements for travelers entering the 
United States in the land border environment would enhance our national 
security and secure and facilitate the entry process into the United 
States. Limiting the number of acceptable, secure documents would allow 
border security officials to quickly, efficiently, accurately, and 
reliably review documentation, identify persons of concern to national 
security, and determine eligibility for entry of legitimate travelers 
without disrupting the critically important movement of people and 
goods across our land borders. Standardizing travel documents for 
citizens of the United States, Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico entering the 
United States in the land border environment would also reduce 
confusion for the travel industry and make the entry process more 
efficient for CBP officers and the public alike.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is required pursuant to section 7209 of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended by the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007.


Alternatives:


CBP considered a number of regulatory alternatives to the rule.


1) Require all U.S. travelers (including children) to present a valid 
passport book. This alternative would require all U.S. citizens, 
including minors under 16 and all cruise passengers, to present a valid 
passport book. The passport card, CBP trusted traveler documents, the 
MMD, and documents from DHS-approved pilot programs would not be 
accepted. This would be a more stringent alternative, and it was 
rejected as potentially too costly and burdensome for low-risk 
populations of travelers. While the traditional passport book will 
always be an acceptable document for a U.S. citizen to present upon 
entry to the United States, DHS and DOS believe that the cost of a 
traditional passport book may be too burdensome for some U.S. citizens, 
particularly those living in border communities where land-border 
crossings are an integral part of everyday life. DHS and DOS believe 
that children under the age of 16 pose a low security threat in the 
land and sea environments and will be permitted to present a certified 
copy of a birth certificate when arriving in the United States at all 
land and sea ports-of-entry from within the Western Hemisphere. 
Additionally, DHS and CBP have developed an alternative procedure for 
children traveling in groups. DHS and DOS have also determined that 
exempting certain cruise passengers from a passport requirement is the 
best approach to balance security and travel efficiency considerations 
in the cruise ship environment.


2) Require all U.S. travelers (including all children) to present a 
valid passport book, passport card, or other approved document.


The second alternative is similar to the proposed rule, though it 
includes children and does not exempt cruise passengers. It is again 
more stringent than the proposed rule. While this alternative 
incorporates the low-cost passport card and CBP trusted traveler cards 
as acceptable travel documents, this alternative was ultimately 
rejected as potentially too costly and burdensome for low-risk 
populations of travelers (certain cruise passengers and minors under 
16).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The analysis summarized here considered U.S. travelers entering the 
United States via land ports-of-entry on the northern and southern 
borders (including arrivals by ferry and pleasure boat) as well as 
certain cruise ship passengers. The period of analysis is 2005-2014 (10 
years). CBP calculates costs beginning in 2005 because although the 
full suite of WHTI rules is not yet in place, DOS has already

[[Page 69842]]

seen a dramatic increase in passport applications since the WHTI plan 
was announced in early 2005. We account for those passports obtained 
prior to full implementation to more accurately estimate the economic 
impacts of the rule as well as to incorporate the fairly sizable 
percentage of travelers that currently hold passports in anticipation 
of the new requirements.


In addition to the traditional passport book, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security is designating the passport card, CBP trusted traveler cards 
(NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST), the Merchant Mariner Document, and specified 
documents from a DHS-approved WHTI pilot program as generally 
acceptable travel documents for U.S. citizens to enter the United 
States at land and sea ports-of-entry. Because DHS and DOS believe that 
children under the age of 16 pose a low security threat in the sea and 
land environments, U.S. children may present a certified copy of a 
birth certificate in lieu of the designated documents. Additionally, 
DHS and DOS have determined that exempting certain cruise passengers 
from a passport requirement is the best approach to balance security 
and travel efficiency considerations in the cruise ship environment. To 
meet the cruise exemptions, a passenger must board the cruise ship at a 
port or place within the United States and the passenger must return on 
the same ship to the same U.S. port or place from where he or she 
originally departed.


For the summary of the analysis presented here, CBP assumes that only 
the passport, trusted traveler cards, and the MMD are available in the 
first years of the analysis (recalling that the period of analysis 
begins in 2005 when passport cards and pilot-program documents were not 
yet available). CBP also assumes that most children under 16 will not 
obtain a passport or passport card but will instead use alternative 
documentation (birth certificates). The estimates reflect that CBP 
trusted traveler cards would be accepted at land and sea ports-of-
entry. Finally, CBP assumes that most of the U.S. cruise passenger 
population will present alternative documentation (government-issued 
photo ID and certified copy of birth certificate) because they meet the 
waiver criteria proposed.


To estimate the costs of the rule, we follow this general analytical 
framework--


-Determine the number of U.S. travelers that will be covered.


-Determine how many already hold acceptable documents.


-Determine how many will opt to obtain passports or passport cards, and 
estimate their lost ``consumer surplus.''


-Determine how many will forgo travel instead of obtaining passports or 
passport cards, and estimate their lost ``consumer surplus.''


Building on the work conducted for the 2005 DOS passport study, CBP 
distilled approximately 300 million annual crossings into the number of 
frequent (defined as at least once a year), infrequent (once every 3 
years), and rare (once every 10 years) ``unique U.S. adult travelers.'' 
We then estimate the number of travelers without the documentation this 
rulemaking proposes to be required and estimate the cost to obtain such 
documents. The fee for the passport varies depending on the age of the 
applicant, whether or not the applicant is renewing a passport, whether 
or not the applicant is requesting expedited service, and whether or 
not the applicant obtains a passport or a passport card. Additionally, 
we consider the amount of time required to obtain the document and the 
value of that time. We use the 2005 DOS passport demand study and CBP 
statistics on the trusted travelerprograms to estimate how many unique 
U.S. travelers already hold acceptable documents.


We estimate covered cruise passengers using data from the Maritime 
Administration (MARAD, 2006 data) and itineraries available on the 
cruise line websites (for 2007). The overwhelming majority of Western 
Hemisphere cruise passengers--92 percent--would fall under the proposed 
cruise-passenger waiver. Passengers not covered by the waiver fall into 
four trade markets--Alaska (72 percent), Trans-Panama Canal (16 
percent), U.S. Pacific Coast (8 percent), and Canada/New England (4 
percent). We estimate that these passengers will have to obtain a 
passport rather than one of the other acceptable documents because 
these travelers will likely have an international flight as part of 
their cruise vacation, and only the passport is a globally accepted 
travel document. We use a comment to the August 2006 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) for implementation of WHTI in the air and sea 
environments (71 FR 46155) from the International Council of Cruise 
Lines to estimate how many unique U.S. cruise travelers already hold 
acceptable documentation.


Based on CBP's analysis, approximately 3.2 million U.S. travelers are 
affected by the proposed rule in the first year of analysis (2005). Of 
these, approximately 2.9 million enter through a land-border crossing 
(via privately owned vehicle, commercial truck, bus, train, on foot) 
and ferry and recreational boat landing sites. An estimated 0.3 million 
are cruise passengers that do not meet the waiver criteria in the NPRM 
(note that over 90 percent of U.S. cruise passengers are expected to 
meet the proposed waiver criteria). CBP estimates that the traveling 
public acquired approximately 3.2 million passports in the first year 
of the analysis, in the anticipation of the passport requirements, at a 
direct cost of $417 million.


To estimate potential forgone travel in the land environment, we derive 
traveler demand curves for access to Mexico and Canada based on survey 
responses collected in the DOS passport study. We estimate that when 
the rule is implemented, the number of unique U.S. travelers to Mexico 
who are frequent travelers decreases by 6.5 percent, the unique U.S. 
travelers who are infrequent travelers decreases by 7.3 percent, and 
the unique U.S. travelers who are rare travelers decreases by 17.8 
percent. The number of U.S. travelers visiting Canada who are frequent 
travelers decreases by 3.7 percent, the unique U.S. travelers who are 
infrequent travelers decreases by 10.7 percent, and the unique U.S. 
travelers who are rare travelers decreases by 10.9 percent. These 
estimates account for the use of a passport card for those travelers 
who choose to obtain one. For unique travelers deciding to forgo future 
visits, their implied value for access to these countries is less than 
the cost of obtaining a passport card.


To estimate potential forgone travel in the relatively small number of 
cruises affected in the sea environment, we use a study from Coleman, 
Meyer, and Scheffman (2003), which described the Federal Trade 
Commission investigation into potential impacts of two cruise-line 
mergers and estimated a demand elasticity for cruise travel. We 
estimate that the number of travelers decreases by 24.4 percent, 13.4 
percent, 7.0 percent, and 5.6 percent for travelers on short (1 to 5 
nights), medium (6 to 8 nights), long (9 to 17 nights), and very long 
cruises (over 17 nights) once the rule is implemented.


Costs of the rule (expressed as losses in consumer surplus) are summed 
by year of the analysis. We then add the

[[Page 69843]]

government costs of implementing WHTI over the period of analysis. Ten-
year costs are $3.3 billion at the 3 percent discount rate and $2.8 
billion at 7 percent. Annualized costs are $384 million at 3 percent 
and $406 million at 7 percent.


Finally, because the benefits of homeland security regulations cannot 
readily be quantified using traditional analytical methods, we conduct 
a ``breakeven analysis'' to determine what the reduction in risk would 
have to be given the estimated costs of the implementation of WHTI 
(land environment only). Using the Risk Management Solutions U.S. 
Terrorism Risk Model (RMS model), we estimated the critical risk 
reduction that would have to occur in order for the costs of the rule 
to equal the benefits--or break even.


The RMS model has been developed for use by the insurance industry and 
provides a comprehensive assessment of the overall terrorism risk from 
both foreign and domestic terrorist organizations. The RMS model 
generates a probabilistic estimate of the overall terrorism risk from 
loss estimates for dozens of types of potential attacks against several 
thousand potential targets of terrorism across the United States. For 
each attack mode-target pair (constituting an individual scenario) the 
model accounts for the probability that a successful attack will occur 
and the consequences of the attack. RMS derives attack probabilities 
from a semi-annual structured expert elicitation process focusing on 
terrorists' intentions and capabilities. It bases scenario consequences 
on physical modeling of attack phenomena and casts target 
characteristics in terms of property damage and casualties of interest 
to insurers. Specifically, property damages include costs of damaged 
buildings, loss of building contents, and loss from business 
interruption associated with property to which law enforcement 
prohibits entry immediately following a terrorist attack. RMS 
classifies casualties based on injury-severity categories used by the 
worker compensation insurance industry.


The results in the figure below are for the cost estimates presented 
above and casualty costs based on willingness-to-pay estimates and a $3 
million value of a statistical life (VSL). These results show that a 
decrease in perceived risk leads to a smaller annualized loss and a 
greater critical risk reduction, and an increase in perceived risk 
leads to a greater annualized loss and a smaller critical risk 
reduction. The total range in critical risk reduction is a factor of 
four and ranges from 6.6 to 26 percent, with a critical risk reduction 
of 13 percent required for the standard risk scenario.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/26/07                    72 FR 35088
NPRM Comment Period End         08/27/07
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Pat Sobol
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1381
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA66
RIN: 1651-AA69
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




71. AIRCRAFT REPAIR STATION SECURITY

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1554


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, sec. 611 of Vision 100 requires TSA 
to issue a final rule within 240 days from date of enactment of Vision 
100.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, sec. 1616 of the 9/11 Commission Act 
requires that the final rule be issued within one year of the date of 
enactment.


Sec. 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
(Pub. L. 108-176; 12/12/2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 
44924, requires TSA to issue ``final regulations to ensure the security 
of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations'' within 240 days from 
date of enactment of Vision 100.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose to add a 
new regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft 
repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision 100--Century 
of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The NPRM will propose general 
requirements for security programs to be adopted and implemented by 
repair stations certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
Regulations originally were to be promulgated by August 8, 2004. A 
Report to Congress was sent August 24, 2004, explaining the delay.


Statement of Need:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing 
regulations to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft 
repair stations. The proposed regulations will require repair stations 
that are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt 
and carry out a security program. The proposal will codify the scope of 
TSA's existing inspection program. The proposal also will provide 
procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination 
that security measures are deficient.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sec. 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
(Pub.L. 108-176; 12/12/2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 
44924, requires TSA to issue ``final regulations to ensure the security 
of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations'' within 240 days from 
date of enactment of Vision 100. Sec. 1616 of Pub.L. 110-53, 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 
3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that the FAA may not certify any 
foreign repair stations if the regulations are not issued within one 
year after the date of enactment of the 9/11 Commission Act unless the 
repair station was previously certified or is in the process of 
certification.

[[Page 69844]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule would enhance aviation security by supplementing 
existing safety regulations with requirements for repair stations to 
implement specific security measures to protect aircraft from 
commandeering, tampering, or sabotage. The proposed security measures 
will mitigate the potential threat that an aircraft could be used as a 
weapon or be destroyed. Using a 7 percent discount rate, TSA estimated 
the 10-year cost impacts for the primary scenario of this rulemaking 
would total $242.4 million. This total is distributed among domestic 
repair stations, which would incur total costs of $119.7 million; 
foreign repair stations, which would incur costs of $68.9 million; and 
TSA-projected Federal Government costs, which would be $53.7 million. 
As of March 2007, the FAA reported that there are 4,227 domestic repair 
stations and 694 repair stations located outside the U.S. that have an 
FAA certificate under part 145 of the FAA's rules.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice-Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        02/24/04                     69 FR 8357
Report to Congress              08/24/04
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John Randol
Program Manager, Repair Stations
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Security Operations
TSA,29, HQ, E9
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1796
Email: [email protected]

Greg Moxness
Branch Chief, Regulatory & Business Analysis Branch, TSNI
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E3-203S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1002
Email: [email protected]

Linda L. Kent
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-126S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2675
Fax: 571 227-1381
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



72. SECURE FLIGHT PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44903


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1560


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 2005.


Sec. 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458; 12/17/2004) requires that not later than 
January 1, 2005, TSA commence testing of an advanced passenger 
prescreening system; and that not later than 180 days after completion 
of testing, TSA begin to assume the performance of the passenger 
prescreening function.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is issuing a rule to 
implement the requirement in section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458; 12/17/
2004) that TSA assume from aircraft operators the performance of the 
passenger screening function of comparing passenger information to 
appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist 
watchlist maintained by the Federal Government.


Statement of Need:


The Secure Flight program will fulfill the requirement of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. 
L. 108-458) that TSA begin to assume the pre-flight watch list matching 
function currently carried out by air carriers. The NPRM would 
establish the regulatory basis for initiation of the Secure Flight 
program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Secure Flight operational testing would exercise and validate TSA's 
ability to connect with the aircraft operators and the Terrorist 
Screening Center, receive passenger and non-traveler information, 
conduct watch list matching, and transmit watch list results back to 
the aircraft operators using live passenger data. Once the testing 
results achieve the program's desired efficacy levels, Secure Flight 
would be implemented and TSA would receive the primary responsibility 
for airline passenger watch list matching. Benefits could include more 
accurate, timely, and comprehensive screening, and a reduction in false 
positives. This would occur because Secure Flight would have access to 
more data than airlines with which to distinguish passengers from 
records in the watch lists. Further, the airlines would be relieved of 
watch list matching responsibilities, and TSA would be relieved of 
distributing the watch lists. Other benefits would include increased 
security due to the watch list matching of non-traveling individuals 
who request access to a sterile area.


TSA estimated the discounted 10-year costs of this rulemaking 
discounted at 7% would total from $1.648 billion to $2.536 billion. Air 
carriers would incur total costs of $92.7 to $297.0 million, and travel 
agents would incur costs of $86.5 to $257.4 million. TSA projected 
Federal Government costs would be from $1.114 to $1.326 billion. The 
total

[[Page 69845]]

cost of outlays would be from $1.293 billion to $1.880 billion. 
Additionally, the cost to individuals (value of time) would be between 
$354.4 and $655.7 million.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Information 
    Collection; Emergency 
    Processing                  09/24/04                    69 FR 57342
Notice: Final Order for 
    Secure Flight Test 
    Phase; Response to 
    Public Comments             11/15/04                    69 FR 65619
NPRM                            08/23/07                    72 FR 48355
NPRM Comment Period End         10/22/07
Notice: Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        09/05/07                    72 FR 50916
Notice: Public Meeting; 
    Comment Period End          10/22/07
NPRM Extension of Comment 
    Period                      10/24/07                    72 FR 60307
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/07
Final Rule                      03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Stephanie Rowe
Assistant Administrator
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Threat Assessment & Credentialing
TSA 19, HQ, E7-516N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-4349
Fax: 571 227-1358
Email: [email protected]

Donald Hubicki
Program Director, Secure Flight Program
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Threat Assessment & Credentialing
TSA-19, HQ
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-4867
Email: [email protected]

Mai Dinh
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA48
RIN: 1652-AA45
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



73.  LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM, OTHER AIRCRAFT OPERATOR 
SECURITY PROGRAM, AND AIRPORT OPERATOR SECURITY PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


6 USC 469; 18 USC 842; 18 USC 845; 46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 
49 USC 114; 49 USC 5103; 49 USC 5103a; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 
44907; 49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916 to 44918; 49 USC 44932; 49 
USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1515; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1542; 49 CFR 
1544; 49 CFR 1550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to amend 
current aviation transportation security regulations to enhance the 
security of general aviation by expanding the scope of current 
requirements and by adding new requirements for certain large aircraft 
operators and airports serving those aircraft. TSA is proposing that 
all aircraft operations, including corporate and private charter 
operations, with aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight 
(MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') be required to adopt a 
large aircraft security program. TSA also proposes to require that 
certain airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs.


Statement of Need:


This NPRM would apply security measures currently in place for 
operators of certain types of aircraft to operators of other aircraft 
and enhance those measures. While the focus of TSA's existing aviation 
security programs has been on air carriers and commercial operators, 
TSA is aware that general aviation aircraft with a maximum certificated 
takeoff weight (MTOW) of over 12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') may be 
vulnerable to terrorist activity. These aircraft are of sufficient size 
and weight to inflict significant damage and loss of lives if they are 
hijacked and used as missiles. TSA has current regulations that apply 
to large aircraft operated by air carriers and commercial operators, 
including the twelve five program, partial program, and the private 
charter program. However, the current regulations do not cover all 
general aviation operations, such as those operated by corporations and 
individuals, and such operations do not have all the features that we 
believe are necessary to enhance their security.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of security and 
quality governance. The security and governance benefits are four-fold. 
First, the rule would enhance security by expanding the mandatory use 
of security measures to certain operators of large aircraft that are 
not currently

[[Page 69846]]

required to have a security plan. These measures would deter malicious 
individuals from perpetrating acts that might compromise transportation 
or national security by using large aircraft for these purposes. 
Second, it would harmonize, as appropriate, security measures used by a 
single operator in its various operations and between different 
operators. Third, the new periodic audits of security programs would 
augment TSA's efforts to ensure that large aircraft operators are in 
compliance with their security programs. Finally, it would consolidate 
the regulatory framework for large aircraft operators that currently 
operate under a variety of security programs, thus simplifying the 
regulations and allowing for better governance.


TSA estimated the total 10-year cost of the program would be $1.2 
billion, discounted at 7%. Aircraft operators, airport operators, and 
the Transportation Security Administration would incur costs to comply 
with the requirements of the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program 
rule. Aircraft operator costs comprise 88.6% of all estimated expenses. 
TSA estimated approximately 9,000 general aviation aircraft operators 
use aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds and 
would thus newly be subject to the proposed rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mike West
Transportation Security Specialist, General Aviation Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-352N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1325
Email: [email protected]

Mai Dinh
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA03, Related to 1652-AA04
RIN: 1652-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



74.  PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION--SECURITY PLAN

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1405


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new 
regulations to enhance security in public transportation in accordance 
with sec. 1405 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements to require high-risk 
public transportation agencies to develop comprehensive security plans. 
Technical assistance and guidance will be provided to these agencies in 
preparing and implementing the security plans.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for the development of 
comprehensive security plans by high-risk public transportation 
agencies to deter security threats.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; Sec. 1405 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Thomas L Farmer
Deputy General Manager - Mass Transit
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-219S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



75.  RAILROADS-SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 69847]]

Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1517


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to sec. 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after the 
date of enactment (Feb. 3, 2008) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of railroads in accordance with the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a training program 
to prepare railroad frontline employees for potential security threats 
and conditions. The regulations will take into consideration any 
current security training requirements or best practices.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a training program 
to prepare railroad frontline employees for potential security threats 
and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; Sec. 1517 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA57
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



76.  RAILROADS--VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY PLAN

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1512


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Due 12 months after date of enactment.


According to sec. 1512 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), must issue a regulation no later than 12 months after date 
of enactment (Aug. 3 2008) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of rail transportation in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
railroad carrier to conduct a vulnerability assessment; implement a 
security plan that addresses security performance requirements; and 
establish standards and guidelines for developing and implementing 
these vulnerability assessments and security plans.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
railroad carrier to conduct a vulnerability assessment; implement a 
security plan that addresses security performance requirements; and 
establish standards and guidelines for developing and implementing 
these vulnerability assessments and security plans.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; Sec. 1512 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Lisa L. Pena
Policy & Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-4414
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA58
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



77.  OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 69848]]

Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1534


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to sec. 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007); 121 
Stat. 266), must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after date 
of enactment (Feb. 3, 2008) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of over-the-road buses in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus training program to 
prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential security 
threats and conditions. The regulations will take into consideration 
any current security training requirements or best practices.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus training program to 
prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential security 
threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; sec. 1534 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



78.  OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY 
PLAN

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1531


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


According to sec. 1531 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266), must 
issue a regulation no later than 18 months after date of enactment 
(Feb. 3, 2009) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of over-the-road bus operators in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
over-the-road bus operator to conduct a vulnerability assessment and 
implement a security plan.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
over-the-road bus operator to conduct a vulnerability assessment and 
implement a security plan.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; sec. 1531 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



79.  SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENTS OF CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION 
PERSONNEL

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, 1602


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new 
regulations to conduct security threat assessments on all frontline 
employees for public transportation agencies, railroads, and over-the-
road buses in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


TSA will also propose user fees to cover the cost of the security treat 
assessments and redress.

[[Page 69849]]

Under the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007, the regulation must include limitations on how employers may use 
the information, prohibitions on making false statements about 
requirements, and a redress process.


Statement of Need:


Sections of the Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2007 require TSA to complete security threat assessments and provide 
a redress process for all frontline employees for public transportation 
agencies, railroads, and over-the-road buses. There could be a further 
need for threat assessments on transportation personnel that could be 
addressed under this rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; sections 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, and 1602 of PL 110-53, 
Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08
Final Rule                      08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Christine Beyer
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2657
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




80. RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 
44901 to 44907; 49 USC 44913 to 44914 ; 49 USC 44916 to 44918; 49 USC 
44935 to 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105; PL 110-53, sec 1501; PL 
107-71; PL 107-296


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1580


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will be issuing 
requirements in this rulemaking action to enhance the security of our 
Nation's rail transportation system. Regulated entities would include 
freight railroad carriers; intercity, commuter, and short-haul 
passenger train service providers; rail transit systems; and operators 
of certain fixed-site facilities that ship or receive specified 
categories and quantities of rail security-sensitive materials by rail.


This rulemaking will codify the scope of TSA's existing inspection 
program and require regulated parties to allow TSA and Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) officials to enter, inspect, and test property, 
facilities, conveyances, and records relevant to rail security. This 
action will also require that regulated parties designate rail security 
coordinators and report significant security concerns to DHS.


TSA further will identify a list of rail sensitive-security materials 
and require that freight rail carriers and certain facilities handling 
rail security-sensitive materials be equipped to report location and 
shipping information to TSA upon request and to implement chain of 
custody requirements to ensure a positive and secure exchange of 
specified hazardous materials. In this action, TSA will also clarify 
and extend the sensitive security information (SSI) protections to 
cover certain information associated with rail transportation.


This action will allow TSA to enhance rail security by coordinating its 
activities with other Federal agencies, which would also avoid 
duplicative inspections and minimize the compliance burden on the 
regulated parties. This rule is intended to augment existing rail 
transportation laws and regulations that the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) administers.


Statement of Need:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is issuing a final 
rule to establish security requirements for freight railroad carriers; 
intercity, commuter, and short-haul passenger train service providers; 
rail transit systems; and rail operations at certain fixed-site 
facilities that ship or receive specified hazardous materials by rail. 
This rule codifies the scope of TSA's existing inspection program and 
requires regulated parties to allow TSA and Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) officials to enter, inspect, and test property, 
facilities, and records relevant to rail security. This rule also 
requires that regulated parties designate rail security coordinators 
and report significant security concerns to DHS. This final rule 
focuses on shipments of certain hazardous materials, establishing chain 
of custody and control procedures, reporting of location and shipping 
information to TSA upon request, and other measures for rail cars that 
pose the greatest security vulnerabilities. TSA also clarifies and 
amends the sensitive security information (SSI) protections to cover 
certain information associated with rail transportation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


TSA has the responsibility for enhancing security in all modes of 
transportation. Under ATSA, and delegated authority from the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, TSA has broad responsibility and authority for 
``security in all modes of transportation * * * including security 
responsibilities'' over modes of transportation that are exercised by 
the Department of Transportation. TSA's authority with respect to 
transportation security is comprehensive and supported with specific 
powers related to the development and enforcement of regulations, 
security directives, security plans, and other requirements. 
Accordingly, under this authority, TSA may assess a security risk for 
any mode of transportation, develop security measures for dealing with 
that risk, and

[[Page 69850]]

enforce compliance with those measures.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The primary estimate of the total ten-year cost of the final rule 
discounted at 7% is from $153 million to $174 million. The main costs 
are from the chain of custody and location reporting requirements.


The final rule will enhance rail transportation security by imposing 
national requirements to appoint rail security coordinators, report 
significant security concerns, and implement location reporting and 
chain of custody requirements. In addition, the broad inspection 
authorities codified in the final rule may help identify 
vulnerabilities in rail transportation that should be addressed in 
future rulemakings or through other mechanisms. Finally, changes to the 
SSI provisions will allow access to information by State, local, and 
tribal authorities that may assist them in addressing security threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking (NPRM)           12/21/06                    71 FR 76852
Notice-Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        01/19/07                     72 FR 2488
NPRM; Comment Period End        02/20/07
NPRM; Initial Regulatory 
    Flexibility Analysis 
    (IRFA)                      02/15/07                     72 FR 7376
NPRM; IRFA; Comment 
    Period End                  02/20/07
Final Rule                      11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
Lisa L. Pena
Policy & Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-4414
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA51
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



81.  PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1408


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 3, 2007, Interim Rule is due 90 days after 
date of enactment.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule is due 1 year after date of 
enactment.


According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), interim final regulations are due 90 days after the date of 
enactment (Nov. 3, 2007), and final regulations are due 1 year after 
the date of enactment (Aug. 3, 2008) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add a new 
regulation to improve the security of public transportation in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements for a public 
transportation security training program to prepare public 
transportation employees, including frontline employees, for potential 
security threats and conditions.


Statement of Need:


A public transportation security training program is proposed to 
prepare public transportation employees, including frontline employees, 
for potential security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 USC 114; Sec. 1408 of PL 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              11/00/07
Final Rule                      08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 69851]]

Agency Contact:
Thomas L Farmer
Deputy General Manager - Mass Transit
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-219S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




82. SPECIAL COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5121-5606


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking implements the Special Community Disaster Loans Program 
authorized in the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005. This rule 
describes the procedures and requirements for a program designed to 
provide loans for essential services to local governments that have 
experienced a loss in revenue due to a major disaster. It will also 
include a cancellation provision as provided by the U.S. Troop 
Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007, for certain community disaster loans 
previously authorized by Congress in the Community Disaster Loan Act of 
2005 and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. Finally, the 
proposed rule is intended to make technical corrections to 
organizational titles as a result of the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006. These regulations do not apply to the 
traditional Community Disaster Loans Program.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to implement statutory requirements and 
address the needs of the communities affected by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita in 2005. The Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-88) 
authorized FEMA to transfer $750 million from the funds appropriated in 
the Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act To Meet Immediate 
Needs Arising From The Consequences Of Hurricane Katrina, 2005, (Pub. 
L. 109-62), to provide up to $1 billion in loan authority. The 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, (Pub. L. 109-234), authorized 
an additional $371,733,000 in loans authorized under the Community 
Disaster Loan Act of 2005. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, 
(Pub. L. 110-28) removes the loan cancellation prohibitions contained 
in the 2005 and 2006 Acts.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is authorized by the Community Disaster Loan Act of 
2005 (Pub. L. 109-88), the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, 
(Pub. L. 109-234), and the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, 
(Pub. L. 110-28).


Alternatives:


While this rulemaking implements statutory requirements, the public has 
already been afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the interim 
rule for the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005, and the public will 
be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the loan cancellation 
provisions authorized in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, 
(Pub. L. 110-28) when FEMA publishes the rulemaking in the Federal 
Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/18/05                    70 FR 60443
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/18/05
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          12/19/05
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1660-AA44
BILLING CODE 4410-10-S

[[Page 69852]]




DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
As the Nation's housing agency, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) is committed to increasing homeownership, 
particularly among minorities; creating affordable housing 
opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, 
the elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with AIDS. HUD 
is also committed to promoting economic and community development, and 
enforcing the Nation's fair housing laws.
Each year, through its programs and initiatives, HUD enables millions 
of individuals and families, including increasing numbers of 
minorities, to become homeowners or to obtain safe, decent, and 
affordable rental housing. HUD helps communities improve economic 
conditions and infrastructure in distressed areas, thereby making these 
communities more livable. HUD increases public awareness of fair 
housing laws, and it is through this awareness, coupled with 
enforcement of fair housing laws, that HUD reduces incidents of housing 
discrimination. Each year, HUD also continues to strengthen its 
partnerships with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
and private sector organizations, including for-profit, nonprofit, 
faith-based, or community-based organizations. These partnerships help 
HUD advance its mission to increase homeownership, support community 
development, and increase access to affordable housing free from 
discrimination.
HUD's three programmatic strategic goals, embodied in HUD's mission 
statement--increasing homeownership, promoting access to decent 
affordable housing, and strengthening communities--form the foundation 
each fiscal year for the majority of HUD's proposals for new or revised 
regulatory programs and initiatives, and this is true for Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2008.
The regulatory plan for HUD for FY 2008 highlights certain significant 
regulatory policy proposals that are designed to advance HUD's mission.
Priority: Increasing Homeownership
Ownership--and homeownership in particular--is the key to financial 
independence, wealth-building, and stronger, healthier communities. An 
ownership society has been a central theme of this Administration. To 
date, more than 75 million families, or nearly 70 percent of all 
Americans, are homeowners--more than at any time in our nation's 
history. HUD is making steady progress in helping more Americans 
achieve the dream of homeownership.
One way that HUD believes it can expand homeownership opportunities is 
to simplify and improve the disclosure requirements for mortgage 
settlement costs and to protect consumers from unnecessarily high 
settlement costs under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 
(RESPA). The settlement costs associated with a mortgage loan are 
significant. In the case of purchase transactions these costs can 
become an impediment to homeownership, particularly for low- and 
moderate-income households. The purposes of RESPA include the provision 
of effective advance disclosure of settlement costs and elimination of 
practices that tend to unnecessarily increase the costs of settlement 
services.
Regulatory Action: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act--
Simplification and Improvement of the Process of Obtaining Home 
Mortgages
To improve the advance disclosure of settlement costs, this proposed 
rule would amend HUD's RESPA regulations by improving and standardizing 
the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) form to improve disclosure of loan terms 
and settlement costs, to make it easier to use for shopping among 
settlement providers. The amendments would provide more accurate 
estimates of the costs of settlement services shown on the GFE; bring 
greater certainty to such settlement costs; and expressly state when 
RESPA permits certain pricing mechanisms that benefit consumers. HUD 
believes that these proposed regulatory changes not only would improve 
advance disclosure of settlement costs, but would encourage shopping 
and competition to lower such costs. HUD would also update RESPA's 
regulations to reflect changes that have occurred in the mortgage 
industry since RESPA was enacted in 1974.
Regulatory Action: The Secretary of HUD's Regulation of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises)
 Another mechanism by which HUD increases homeownership opportunities 
is through the establishment of housing goals for Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac (collectively, the Government Sponsored Enterprises or 
GSEs), and HUD's oversight of compliance with these goals.
 The GSEs were chartered by Congress to create a secondary market for 
residential mortgage loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest 
source of housing finance in the United States. Their Congressional 
charters require each corporation to achieve public purposes that 
include providing stability and liquidity in the secondary mortgage 
market; providing secondary market assistance relating to residential 
mortgages, including mortgages for low- and moderate-income families; 
and promoting access to mortgage credit throughout the nation, 
including underserved areas.
 Under the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness 
Act of 1992, HUD is required to establish housing goals for the GSEs. 
The current goals promulgated by regulation in 2004, cover the calendar 
years 2005 through 2008. The Secretary, therefore, is proposing to 
establish new goals for future years. The new goals to be established 
by this rule will be designed to ensure that the GSEs carry out their 
statutory responsibilities to finance housing that serves very low-, 
low-, and moderate-income families and those living in areas 
traditionally underserved by the mortgage markets.
Priority: Promoting Decent Affordable Housing
 While homeownership is a top priority of HUD, HUD recognizes that it 
may not be a viable option for everyone. Therefore, promoting decent 
affordable housing for families and individuals who may not yet be 
ready to purchase a home also is a central part of HUD's mission. To 
this end, HUD seeks to improve the quality of the housing opportunities 
provided to families in public and assisted housing. Public housing is 
an important asset in which the Federal Government has invested for 
more than seven decades. Throughout America, public housing provides 
homes for millions of Americans who have serious housing needs due to 
age, income, or disability. For many very low-income families and 
individuals, public housing represents the line between decent shelter 
and homelessness. To ensure that those of lesser means are well-housed 
in decent, safe, and viable communities, HUD provides capital funds to 
maintain this asset. Assistance under the Capital Fund is the primary, 
regular source of funding made available by HUD to a public housing 
agency (PHA) for its capital activities, including modernization, 
rehabilitation, and the development of public housing. HUD's goal is to 
ensure that PHAs can address their most

[[Page 69853]]

serious capital issues when the need arises, in order to avoid more 
costly and extensive renovations after need accrues for several years.
 To accomplish these goals, HUD will focus on updating and improving 
the regulations governing the Capital Fund.
Regulatory Action: Capital Fund Program
 The regulations implementing the new Capital Fund formula were 
promulgated in 2000. This proposed rule would establish the full 
regulatory framework for the Capital Fund Program. This proposed rule 
would update, consolidate, and streamline the regulations governing the 
former legacy public housing modernization programs: the Comprehensive 
Grant Program, the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program, and 
the Public Housing Development Program. One of the objectives of the 
proposed rule is to improve the long-term planning of capital 
improvements among PHAs, while minimizing the administrative burden of 
such planning without sacrifice to its quality and effectiveness. The 
proposed rule also would modify the physical-needs assessment in the 
existing regulations to provide PHAs with critical information on the 
physical condition of each project in the PHA's inventory.
While HUD provides assistance that helps to ensure that PHAs can 
address their most serious capital issues, HUD holds PHAs accountable 
for providing safe and decent housing and protecting the Federal 
investment in their properties. The changes proposed by this rule to 
the Capital Fund program are designed to assist PHAs with effective 
property-based planning, which will assist in improving PHA 
decisionmaking and improved capital planning.
The Priority Regulations that Comprise HUD's FY 2008 Regulatory Plan
 A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
HUD's FY 2008 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




83. HUD'S REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC: HOUSING GOALS (FR-
4960)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1451 et seq; 12 USC 1716 to 1723h; 12 USC 4501 to 4641; 28 USC 
2461 note; 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 3601 to 3619


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Through this rule, the Department will propose housing goals for the 
purchase of mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the 
Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs) going forward and make any 
necessary revisions to HUD's GSE rules to ensure that the GSEs meet 
statutory requirements and carry out their public missions. In 
accordance with the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
Soundness Act of 1992 (FHEFSSA), this rule would establish new goals 
for the GSEs' purchase of mortgages financing low- and moderate-income 
housing; special affordable housing; and housing in central cities, 
rural areas, and other underserved areas. This rule would clarify, as 
necessary, HUD's guidelines for counting different types of mortgage 
purchases toward those goals. The current housing goals apply through 
2008. The Secretary of HUD has general regulatory power over each GSE 
and is required to make such rules and regulations as necessary to 
ensure that the purposes of FHEFSSA and the GSEs' charters are 
accomplished. HUD's current GSE regulations implement FHEFSSA and 
include provisions relating to fair housing, new program approval, 
reporting, and access to information requirements. This rule will 
propose revisions to clarify HUD's rules implementing FHEFSSA and carry 
out the Secretary's regulatory responsibilities.


Statement of Need:


In the absence of new goals, the goals already established for 2008 
remain in place, but the Secretary intends to establish goals going 
forward with the objective of ensuring that the two GSEs fully address 
the housing finance needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income 
families and residents of underserved areas, and thus more fully 
realize their public purposes. FHEFSSA sets forth the Secretary's 
responsibilities regarding the GSEs and the GSEs' charters specify 
their public missions. Under FHEFSSA, the Secretary must make necessary 
rules and regulations to ensure that the purposes of FHEFSSA and the 
GSEs' charters are accomplished.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Department is required to establish housing goals for the GSEs 
pursuant to FHEFSSA (12 USC 4501 et seq.). HUD also has general 
regulatory power over each GSE (12 USC 4541) and is required to make 
such rules and regulations as are necessary to ensure that the purposes 
of FHEFSSA and the GSEs' charters are accomplished. (See 12 USC 4501-
4641)


Alternatives:


The Department considered the alternative of leaving the housing goals 
unchanged. However, HUD takes very seriously its obligations under the 
law to establish the housing goals using the most current data and 
information.


The Department also considered leaving other provisions of the GSE 
rules unchanged. However, HUD believes that some changes may be 
appropriate to better accomplish the purposes of the law.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule is anticipated to have the benefit of increasing 
homeownership opportunities and affordable housing units for low- and 
moderate-income families and underserved communities and ensuring that 
the GSEs otherwise carry out their responsibilities under FHEFSSA. 
There is no expectation that these objectives would be costly for the 
GSEs. HUD's analyses have consistently indicated that meeting 
appropriate housing goals will have little impact on the GSEs' 
financial returns or on the safety and soundness of GSE operations. 
Additionally, increased GSE activity in the affordable lending arena 
has not adversely affected traditional portfolio lenders.

[[Page 69854]]

Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/02/04                    69 FR 63576
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/17/04
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Sandra Fostek
Director, Office of Government Sponsored Enterprises Oversight, Office 
of Housing
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 402-2233
RIN: 2501-AD12
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of Housing (OH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




84. REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA); TO SIMPLIFY AND 
IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING MORTGAGES AND REDUCE CONSUMER COSTS 
(FR-5180)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 2601 et seq; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 3500


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In July and August 2005, HUD held seven roundtable discussions about 
possible changes to HUD's RESPA regulations with industry, including 
small business entities, consumers, and other interested parties. These 
roundtables were held at HUD Headquarters and in the cities of Los 
Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; and Fort Worth, Texas. HUD 
found the roundtable discussions to be very informative and, after 
further considerations of the issues and proposals raised at the 
roundtables and further assessment of current mortgage industry 
practices, HUD is proposing changes to its RESPA regulations that would 
improve and standardize the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) form to make it 
easier to use for shopping among settlement providers and help 
borrowers understand how yield spread premiums can affect their 
settlement charges.


Statement of Need:


The rule is needed to simplify and improve the process of obtaining a 
home mortgage, to lower costs for consumers. The current disclosure 
requirements under RESPA have not been substantially revised in several 
years. Under current rules, there is confusion concerning the role of 
the mortgage broker and how the broker is compensated. Recent changes 
in the mortgage industry have heightened the need for greater clarity. 
The current GFE does not necessarily result in reliable estimates for 
consumers or facilitate shopping, which would lead to lower costs. 
Addressing these considerations in HUD's regulations can result in 
price reductions for consumers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as 
may be necessary to achieve the purpose of the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act of 1974 (12 USC 2617).


Alternatives:


As noted above, the RESPA disclosure requirements have not been 
substantially revised in several years. The Department tried to bring 
some clarity to the process through two policy statements: a Statement 
of Policy on Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers, issued on March 1, 
1999, and a Clarification of the 1999 Statement of Policy, issued on 
October 17, 2001. Non-regulatory alternatives were considered and acted 
upon, but it was determined that the changes in the marketplace and 
recent judicial decisions call for new regulations on the part of HUD.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because the nation's home mortgage market is a billion-dollar industry, 
there are costs and benefits associated with this rule that will be 
addressed in the Economic Analysis that will accompany the proposed 
rule. The Economic Analysis will identify a wide range of benefits, 
costs, efficiencies, transfers and market impacts. The effects on 
consumers from improved borrower shopping have the potential to be 
substantial as a result of this rulemaking. Similarly, increased 
competition, which may result from a GFE that encourages shopping, 
could result in large reductions in settlement service costs, as well 
as possibly associated income transfers from service providers who are 
earning ``economic rents'' in today's system to borrowers, who most 
likely would be the ultimate beneficiaries of more competition among 
settlement service providers. Entities that would suffer revenue losses 
under this rulemaking are those who now overcharge uninformed 
borrowers, or are high-cost producers, or are benefiting from the 
current system's limitations on competition.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ivy Jackson
Director, Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
451 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 708-0502
RIN: 2502-AI61

[[Page 69855]]

_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




85. CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM (FR-4880)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437g; 42 USC 1437z-7; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 905


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish the full regulatory framework for the Capital 
Fund Program, which provides assistance for the capital and management 
improvement needs of public housing agencies (PHAs). This rule will 
replace and remove several other rules that currently govern a PHA's 
use of HUD assistance, including part 941 -- Public Housing Development 
and part 968 -- Public Housing Modernization. This rule will continue 
and expand the streamlining of procedures and requirements initiated 
under the Comprehensive Grant Program and Comprehensive Improvement 
Program at part 968.


Statement of Need:


Assistance under the Capital Fund Program is the primary, regular 
source of funding made available by HUD to a PHA for its capital 
activities, including modernization and development of public housing. 
This rule will implement fully the requirements for the use of 
assistance made available under the Capital Fund Program. The 
regulations will provide the appropriate notice of the legal framework 
for the program, with clear and uniform guidance for program operation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sections 518, 519, and 539 of the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act, which amended Sections 9 and 5 of, and added 
section 35(g) to, the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.


Alternatives:


The amendments to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 made by the Quality 
Housing and Work Responsibility Act, regarding the Capital Fund Program 
required a formula system to be established to govern funding of PHAs' 
public housing capital needs. This formula was established by final 
rule issued in 2000. Guidance for administration of these funds 
necessitates a permanent legal framework rather than informal and 
sporadic HUD notices.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of the program as administered with one fund from which a PHA 
would fund all of its capital needs are the same as under existing 
provisions. The benefits of having one funding mechanism for all such 
needs, and the provision of additional flexibility to PHAs to manage 
their physical assets, would provide increased benefits to the PHAs. 
Likewise, uniform program administration of these funds would provide 
increased benefits to the PHAs.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Riddel
Director, Capital Program Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
451 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 401-8812
RIN: 2577-AC50
BILLING CODE 4210-67-S

[[Page 69856]]




DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal steward 
of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of our 
cultural treasures. We serve as trustee to Native Americans and Alaska 
natives and also are responsible for relations with the island 
territories under United States jurisdiction. We manage more than 500 
million acres of Federal lands, including 391 park units, 547 wildlife 
refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion acres submerged in offshore 
waters. The Department protects natural, historic, and cultural 
resources, recovers endangered species, manages water projects, manages 
forests and fights wildland fires, regulates surface coal mining 
operations, leases public lands for coal, oil, and gas production to 
meet the Nation's energy needs, educates children in Indian schools, 
and provides recreational opportunities for over 400 million visitors 
annually in our national parks, Bureau of Land Management public lands, 
national wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Reclamation recreation areas. 
To fulfill these responsibilities, the Department generates scientific 
and other information relating to land and resource management.
The Department is committed to achieving its stewardship objectives in 
partnership with States, communities, landowners, and others through 
consultation, cooperation, and communication.
We will review and update the Department's regulations and policies to 
ensure that they are effective, efficient, and promote accountability. 
Special emphasis will be given to regulations and policies that:
 Adopt performance approaches focused on achieving cost-
            effective, timely results;
 Incorporate the best available science, and utilize peer 
            review where appropriate;
 Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, 
            other groups, and individuals;
 Provide incentives for private landowners to achieve 
            conservation goals; and
 Minimize regulatory and procedural burdens, promoting 
            fairness, transparency, and accountability by agency 
            regulators while maintaining performance goals.
Major Regulatory Areas
All of the Department's bureaus and offices have significant regulatory 
responsibilities.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), in 
partnership with the States and Indian tribes, establishes and enforces 
environmental standards for coal mining and reclamation operations. In 
addition, OSM administers the abandoned mine land reclamation program, 
which is funded by a fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. Money 
from these fees is placed in a fund that is used to reclaim lands and 
waters impacted by historic mining activities conducted before the 
enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 
The collection of the fee for reclamation purposes was scheduled to 
expire in 2007 but was extended by legislation on December 20, 2006, 
and will now be collected through September 30, 2021. The extension of 
the fee will result in the continued reclamation and restoration of 
land and water resources affected by past coal mining, and will also 
result in the elimination of many health and safety hazards.
Other DOI bureaus rely on regulations to implement legislatively 
mandated programs that focus on the management of natural resources and 
public or trust lands. Some of these regulatory activities include:
 Management of migratory birds and preservation of certain 
            marine mammals and endangered species;
 Management of dedicated lands, such as national parks, 
            wildlife refuges, and American Indian trust lands;
 Management of public lands open to multiple use;
 Leasing and development oversight of Federal energy, minerals, 
            and renewable resources;
 Management of revenues from American Indian and Federal 
            minerals;
 Fulfillment of trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indians;
 Natural resource damage assessments; and
 Management of financial and nonfinancial assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
How DOI Regulatory Procedures Relate to the Administration's Regulatory 
Policies
Within the requirements and guidance in Executive Orders 12866, 12630, 
13132, 13175, 13211, and 12988, DOI's regulatory programs seek to:
 Fulfill all legal requirements as specified by statutes or 
            court orders;
 Perform essential functions that cannot be handled by non-
            Federal entities;
 Minimize regulatory costs to society while maximizing societal 
            benefits; and
 Operate programs openly, efficiently, and in cooperation with 
            Federal and non-Federal entities.
DOI bureaus work with other Federal agencies, non-Federal government 
agencies, and public entities to make our regulations easier to comply 
with and understand. Regulatory improvement is a continuing process 
that requires the participation of all affected parties. We strive to 
include all affected entities in the decision-making process and to 
issue rules efficiently. To better manage and review the regulatory 
process, we have revised our internal rulemaking and information 
quality guidance. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share 
ideas on how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the 
requirements of the laws they enforce and improving their stewardship 
of the environment and resources under their purview. Results included:
 Increased bureau awareness of and responsiveness to the needs 
            of small businesses and better compliance with the Small 
            Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA);
 A departmental effort to evaluate the economic effects of 
            planned rules and regulations;
 Issuance of guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure the 
            use of plain language;
 Issuance of new guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure 
            that National Environmental Policy Act policies that 
            streamline decision making and enhance citizen 
            participation are institutionalized;
 Issuance of revised procedures in the Departmental Manual to 
            clarify the responsibility to offer cooperating agency 
            status to qualified agencies and governments, and to make 
            clear the role of cooperating agencies in the

[[Page 69857]]

            implementation of the Department's NEPA compliance process;
 Increased outreach to involved parties in the Natural 
            Resources Damage Assessment Program, stressing cooperation 
            and restoration of affected sites;
 Streamlined decision-making pertaining to fuels-reduction 
            projects under the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy 
            Forests Restoration Act; and
 Hydropower license rules promulgated jointly with the 
            Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, in consultation 
            with FERC, that streamline the licensing and appeals 
            process as called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Implementing the President's National Energy Policy and the Energy 
Policy Act
The President's National Energy Policy promotes ``dependable, 
affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of 
energy for the future.'' The Department of the Interior plays a vital 
role in implementing the President's energy policy goals. The lands, 
waters, and facilities managed by the Department account for nearly 30 
percent of all the energy produced in the United States.
Through over 100 actions, the Department is implementing the 
President's energy policy and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including 
numerous regulatory actions. The Bureau of Land Management and the 
Minerals Management Service are developing proposed rules to implement 
the Energy Policy Act. The Office of Surface Mining has developed 
regulations that will promote better mining and reclamation practices 
while maintaining a stable regulatory framework conducive to coal 
production.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed Interior to promulgate 
regulations regarding tar sands leasing, geothermal leasing, and oil 
and gas lease acreage. These were all issued this fiscal year. Further, 
other energy-related regulations were issued. The Minerals Management 
Service, for example, issued final regulations regarding geological and 
geophysical exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), incident 
reporting, data release definitions, and cost recovery.
The Bureau of Land Management has seen a sharp and sustained increase 
in the submission of oil and natural gas drilling permit applications. 
BLM met the challenge by initiating numerous innovative streamlining 
strategies to reduce the backlog of pending drilling permits. As BLM 
continues to make steady progress in reducing the backlog, it must work 
even more aggressively in the face of rising energy prices and 
increased demand for drilling permits. To aid in this effort, new 
process improvement tools have become available with the passage of the 
Energy Policy Act. With these tools, BLM will further reduce and 
ultimately eliminate the backlog of pending permits while allowing the 
development of energy resources in an environmentally responsible 
manner.
BLM is continuing its program of environmental Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) to help ensure the continued development of energy 
resources in an environmentally responsible manner. BMPs are 
innovative, dynamic, and improved environmental protection practices 
aimed at reducing impacts to the many natural resources BLM manages on 
behalf of the public. The BLM requires that appropriate environmental 
BMPs be considered for use in all new oil and gas drilling and 
production operations on the public lands administered by the BLM. A 
full discussion and many examples of BMPs can be found at BLM's BMP 
website: www.blm.gov/bmp
Encouraging Responsible Management of the Nation's Resources
The Department's mission includes protecting and providing access to 
our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust 
responsibilities to tribes. We are committed to this mission and to 
applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. The Department's 
priorities include protecting public health and safety, restoring and 
maintaining public lands, protecting threatened and endangered species, 
ameliorating land and resource-management problems on public lands, and 
ensuring accountability and compliance with Federal laws and 
regulations.
Consistent with the President's Executive Order on Cooperative 
Conservation, the Department is continuing to work with State and local 
governments, tribes, landowners, conservation groups, and the business 
community to conserve species and habitat. Building on successful 
approaches such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, 
and candidate conservation agreements, the Department is reviewing its 
policies and regulations to identify opportunities to streamline the 
regulatory process where possible, consistent with protection of 
wildlife, and to enhance incentive-based programs to encourage 
landowners and others to implement voluntary conservation measures. For 
example, the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued guidance to promote 
the establishment of conservation banks as a tool to offset adverse 
impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act and restore 
habitat. The Service is currently developing guidance for expanding the 
use of the Recovery Credit System that was developed in collaboration 
with partners at Fort Hood, Texas.
The Department is improving incentives through administrative 
flexibility under the Endangered Species Act. Released in April 2004 
was a rule change intended to provide greater clarity as to what is 
allowable under incidental take permits and to provide greater private 
landowner protections under safe harbor agreements.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing a policy and procedures 
for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating allegations of 
scientific misconduct by USGS employees and volunteers in accordance 
with the Federal policy on research misconduct. All covered employees 
and volunteers will be informed of their obligation to follow this 
policy and required to sign a statement indicating they have received, 
read, and understand the policy. These efforts will help to protect the 
public from the effects of inaccurate or misleading information 
produced through scientific activities and help to ensure scientific 
integrity in the conduct of scientific activities.
In 2006, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, Western 
Governors, county commissioners, and other affected parties completed a 
revision of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, a 
collaborative national effort to reduce the risk wildland fire poses to 
people, communities, and the environment. The revision incorporates new 
understanding and lessons learned over the last five years. It draws 
upon new tools like LANDFIRE (an advanced natural resource geographic 
information system), National Fire Project Operating and Reporting 
System (NFPORS) (a comprehensive interagency fuels treatment, community 
assistance, and post-fire rehabilitation tracking system), and the 
emergence of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) called for in 
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act signed by the President in December 
2003. The revision contains new performance measures and

[[Page 69858]]

implementation tasks covering collaboration, fire prevention and 
suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, pre- and post-fire landscape 
restoration, and community assistance.
Since the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in 2002, 
the Department has made extensive progress in reducing hazardous fuels. 
From 2003 to 2006, the bureaus treated an average of over 1,260,000 
acres annually compared to 728,000 acres in 2001. The Department 
shifted emphasis toward the wildland urban interface (WUI), each year 
treating three times as many WUI acres as were reached in 2001. The 
Department has rapidly inculcated the new tools provided by the Healthy 
Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act into its 
work. The Department now uses the streamlined NEPA-compliance on some 
80 percent of new hazardous fuels NEPA work, while, in 2006, over 45 
percent of all fuels treatments accomplished were associated with 
either a streamlined NEPA tool or a CWPP.
The National Park Service is developing a new winter use plan and EIS 
for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. 
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. These park areas operated for three 
winters under a Temporary Winter Use Plan that expired at the end of 
the 2006-2007 winter season. A new long-term plan, EIS, and rulemaking 
must be completed before December 19, 2007, if the parks are to open 
for oversnow vehicle use for the 2007-2008 winter season. Since July 
2005 the parks have implemented a Public and Agency Participation Plan 
with a commitment to open information sharing. This Plan (available on 
the parks' winter use website) employs a variety of outreach methods to 
keep cooperating agencies and other interested parties informed. These 
methods attempt to meaningfully involve the public through: roving team 
meetings, selected larger meetings, newsletters, and web site postings 
(Yellowstone site and NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment 
(PEPC) system). To date in this process, the parks have held or 
attended approximately 60 meetings and open houses.
One research proposal (which evaluates key uncertainties regarding road 
grooming and bison movements) is currently undergoing peer review and 
will inform the FEIS. Also, an operational risk assessment of avalanche 
issues will inform the FEIS. Additionally, social science research 
planned for the 2007-2008 winter season would explore visitor 
perceptions of 1) human/wildlife interactions and 2) impacts to natural 
soundscapes.
A Draft EIS was made available for public review March 27, 2007 through 
June 5 for formal public comment. The Proposed Rule comment period 
closed on July 16. Public meetings were held in Cody, Wyoming; West 
Yellowstone, Montana; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Lakewood, Colorado. A 
cooperating agency meeting was held in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The 
cooperating agencies are the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, the 
five counties around the parks, the U.S. Forest Service and EPA. 
Approximately 120,000 public comments were received on the Draft EIS 
and approximately 2,000 public comments were received on the Proposed 
Rule. The schedule for the remainder of the process is:
Final EIS available and ROD signed: fall 2007
Final rule published: fall 2007
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a grazing administration 
rule. However, that rule is the subject of a court ruling that strikes 
down many of its provisions. The Department is reviewing that ruling 
and considering the appropriate response.
In December 2004, President Bush issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, in 
response to the US Commission on Ocean Policy Report. The Action Plan 
includes a series of proposals from across the Government that included 
policy proposals, legislative recommendations, and regulatory 
initiatives. DOI has a number of responsibilities under the Action plan 
including: implementation of interim regulations and joint permits to 
support the President's Proclamation establishing the Northwest 
Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument (Papahanaumokuakea); 
development of a seamless network to protect and conserve the Nation's 
ocean and coastal refuges, reserves, parks and sanctuaries; and 
creation of a National Water Quality Network.
The Department has submitted over a dozen proposed categorical 
exclusions provided for under NEPA to expedite a range of activities 
that the agencies routinely conduct. These range from periodic road 
closures over dams to activities related to improving Forest Health and 
energy related activities.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
We are using the regulatory process to improve results while easing 
regulatory burdens. For instance, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
allows for the delisting of threatened and endangered species if they 
no longer need the protection of the ESA. We have identified 
approximately 40 species for which delisting or downlisting 
(reclassification from endangered to threatened) may be appropriate.
The Federal Power Act authorizes the Department to include in 
hydropower licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
conditions and prescriptions necessary to protect Federal and tribal 
lands and resources and to provide fishways when navigable waterways or 
Federal reservations are used for hydropower generation. As a result of 
the recently enacted energy legislation, the Administration developed a 
joint rule involving the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the 
Interior that establishes a trial-type hearing for a review of disputes 
over ``material facts'' included in hydropower licenses.
Encouraging Public Participation and Involvement in the Regulatory 
Process
The Department is encouraging increased public participation in the 
regulatory process to improve results by ensuring that regulatory 
policies take into account the knowledge and ideas of our customers, 
regulated community, and other interested participants. The Department 
is reaching out to communities to seek public input on a variety of 
regulatory issues. For example, every year FWS establishes migratory 
bird hunting seasons in partnership with ``flyway councils,'' which are 
made up of State fish and wildlife agencies. As the process evolves 
each year, FWS holds a series of public meetings to give other 
interested parties, including hunters and other groups, opportunities 
to participate in establishing the upcoming season's regulations.
Similarly, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) made up of 
affected parties to help prepare land management plans and regulations 
that it issues under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and 
other statutes.
The Department reviewed and reformed its NEPA compliance program and in 
2004 implemented new procedures to improve public participation and 
reduce paperwork and redundancy of effort in the field. The reforms 
include: consensus-based management, public participation, community-
based

[[Page 69859]]

training, use of integrated analysis, adaptive management, and tiered 
and transferred analysis. To promote greater transparency and public 
accountability, the Department is now considering publication of these 
procedures for codification in the Code of Federal Regulations. The 
proposed regulations supplement the CEQ regulations and must be used in 
conjunction with them. The regulations, if promulgated, will ensure 
that field staff have the tools to tailor their implementation of the 
NEPA process to local needs and interests.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA; Pub. L. 108-447), 
enacted in December 2004, requires that the Forest Service and BLM 
establish Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RRACs), or use 
existing BLM RACs to perform the duties of RRACs. These committees will 
make recreation fee program recommendations to the two agencies on 
agency proposals to implement or eliminate certain recreation fees; to 
expand or limit their fee programs; and to implement fee level changes. 
After holding numerous ``listening sessions'' across the country in 
order to hear recommendations from the public on the appropriate 
configuration of the RRACs, the agencies established an organizational 
structure that was approved by both the Department of the Interior and 
the Department of Agriculture. The Departments signed an Interagency 
Agreement establishing the framework, processes, and collaborative RRAC 
approach the two agencies will use to comply with the REA's public 
participation requirements. The RRACs began reviewing agency fee 
proposals in 2007.
We encourage public consultation during the regulatory process. For 
example:
 OSM is continuing its outreach to interested groups to improve 
            the substance and quality of rules and, to the greatest 
            extent possible, achieve consensus on regulatory issues. As 
            part of this process, OSM meets on a regular basis with 
            organizations that represent coal producing states such as 
            the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National 
            Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs;
 Through a negotiated rulemaking process, the Bureau of Indian 
            Affairs has finalized its roads program rule, which 
            reflects the importance of the roads program to the 
            individual tribes and the varying needs of the tribal 
            governments;
 The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a unit of the 
            National Park System, has engaged in negotiated rulemaking 
            to resolve an issue regarding walking dogs off-leash in the 
            park. Existing NPS regulations require all dogs to be on a 
            leash while in Golden Gate NRA, and the park has asked 
            interested parties on both sides of the issue to help draft 
            a proposed rule.
Regulatory Actions Related to the Events of September 11, 2001
The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for protecting 348 reservoirs 
and more than 500 Federal dams, 58 hydroelectric plants, and over 8 
million acres of Federal property. Public Law 107-69 granted 
Reclamation law enforcement authority for its lands. On April 17, 2006, 
Reclamation finalized its rules implementing this authority.
Rules of Particular Interest to Small Businesses
The NPS snowmobiling rule for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 
Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway is of great interest 
to small businesses in the area of the parks, in particular those who 
rent snowmobiles. An initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis points 
toward economic benefits to businesses in gateway communities, with 
some costs incurred by non-snowmobile users of the parks.
FWS is making critical habitat designations more site-specific and is 
using the ESA section 4(b) exclusion process to reduce regulatory costs 
on small businesses. As a result of the 9th Circuit's ruling on 
``Gifford Pinchot,'' invalidating the FWS's regulatory definition of 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the Department 
is considering a rulemaking.
BLM has developed Stewardship Contracting Guidance that provides a 
framework for the preparation, implementation, and tracking of BLM 
stewardship projects, in accordance with section 323 of Public Law 108-
7, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, which authorizes 
BLM to enter into stewardship projects with private persons or public 
or private entities, by contract or by agreement, to perform services 
to achieve land management goals for the national forests or public 
lands that meet local and rural community needs. The legislation also 
authorizes the value of timber or other forest products removed to be 
applied as an offset against the cost of services received.
The Future of DOI
Interior updated its 2003-2008 strategic plan in accordance with the 
Government Performance and Results Act requirement to update such plans 
every three years. Employee teams from bureaus and offices across 
Interior engaged in the revision process. Senior Departmental 
leadership were involved in reviews and approval of recommended changes 
before releasing the draft plan for public comment. The draft GPRA 
Strategic Plan: 2007-12 was the subject of a number of public meetings, 
tribal government to government consultations, and employee focus 
groups during August and September 2006. Modifications based on 
analysis of the comments received were completed and the final plan was 
published on December 28, 2006.
The revised GPRA Strategic Plan:
 Incorporates key Administration and Secretarial priorities 
            into Interior's goals and performance measures
 Provides for more ``results-oriented'' goals for Interior 
            programs
 Provides the basis for the Departmental Annual Performance 
            Plan
Interior bureaus will continue to prepare internal plans to support 
their budget initiatives and to meet management excellence and 
accountability needs.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following brief descriptions summarize the regulatory functions of 
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for managing trust 
responsibilities to Indian tribes and individual Indians and 
encouraging tribal governments to engage in self governance and self 
determination.
The BIA's rulemaking and policy development processes foster public and 
tribal awareness of the standards and procedures that directly affect 
them. The processes also encourage the public and the tribes to 
participate in developing these standards and procedures. The goals of 
BIA regulatory policies are to: (a) fulfill the Secretary's trust 
responsibilities to federally recognized tribes and individual Indians; 
(b) develop Indian trust management policies and regulations that 
implement statutory requirements articulated by Congress; (c) ensure

[[Page 69860]]

consistent policies within BIA that result in uniform interactions with 
tribal governments; (d) facilitate tribal involvement in the delivery 
of BIA services; and (e) ensure continued protection of tribal treaties 
and statutory rights.
The BIA and the Office of the Secretary propose to finalize in late 
2007 several of their regulations related to Indian trust management to 
meet the policies articulated by Congress in the Indian Land 
Consolidation Act (ILCA) as amended by the American Indian Probate 
Reform Act of 2004 (AIPRA). These amendments address Indian trust 
management issues in the areas of probate; probate hearings and 
appeals; tribal probate codes; life estates and future interest in 
Indian land; and conveyances of trust or restricted land. These 
amendments to 25 CFR Parts 15, 18, and 43 CFR Parts 4, 30 form an 
integrated approach to Indian trust management related to probate and 
conveyances that allows the Department to better meet the needs of its 
beneficiaries.
The Department is also developing amendments to regulations in the 
areas of land acquisitions; leasing; grazing; minerals and energy; 
rights-of-way; and trust fund accounting and appeals. Together, these 
regulatory changes to be proposed in 2008 will provide the Department 
with the tools it needs to better serve beneficiaries and will 
standardize procedures for consistent execution of fiduciary 
responsibilities across the BIA.
Indian Affairs will also be working to implement provisions of the No 
Child Left Behind Act, which requires negotiated rulemaking to develop 
standards for facilities maintenance and new school construction. A 
proposed rule should be published by the end of 2008.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 258 million acres of 
land surface and about 700 million acres of Federal mineral estate. 
These lands consist of extensive grasslands, forests, mountains, arctic 
tundra, and deserts. Resources on the lands include energy and 
minerals, timber, forage, wild horse and burro populations, habitat for 
fish and wildlife, wilderness areas, and archaeological and cultural 
sites. The BLM manages these lands and resources for multiple purposes 
and the sustained yield of renewable resources. Primary statutes under 
which the BLM operates include: the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976; the General Mining Law of 1872; the Mineral Leasing Act of 
1920, as amended; the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; the Taylor 
Grazing Act; the Wilderness Act; and the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and 
Burro Act.
The Regulatory Program mirrors statutory responsibilities and BLM 
objectives, including the following:
 Supporting the objectives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
            developing regulations that facilitate the domestic 
            production of energy, including renewable energies such as 
            biomass, wind, solar, and other alternative sources of 
            energy;
 Providing for a wide variety of public uses while maintaining 
            the long-term health and diversity of the land and 
            preserving significant natural, cultural, and historic 
            resource values;
 Understanding the arid, semi-arid, arctic, and other 
            ecosystems we manage and committing ourselves to using the 
            best scientific and technical information to make resource 
            management decisions;
 Understanding the needs of the people who use the BLM-managed 
            public lands and providing them with quality service;
 Securing the recovery of a fair return for using publicly 
            owned resources and avoiding the creation of long-term 
            liabilities for American taxpayers; and
 Resolving problems and implementing decisions in cooperation 
            with other agencies, States, tribal governments, and the 
            public.
The objectives of the Regulatory Program include preparing regulations 
that:
 Are the product of communication, coordination, and 
            consultation with all affected interests and the public;
 Are easy for the public to understand, especially those who 
            would be most affected by them; and
 Are subject to periodic review to determine whether the rules 
            require updating to reflect statutory or policy changes, 
            and whether they are achieving desired results.
The BLM's regulatory priorities include:
 Completing rules to facilitate implementation of the Energy 
            Policy Act of 2005 in order to encourage domestic 
            production of energy;
 Completing amendments of the recreation permit regulations in 
            order to bring them into conformance with new governing 
            law, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 
            Act; and
 Completing the reorganization and updating of the regulations 
            on locating, recording, and maintaining mining claims and 
            mill and tunnel sites to eliminate obsolete provisions and 
            make the regulations easier to follow.
Most BLM regulations affect small business. Many business entities that 
operate on public lands qualify as small businesses as the term is 
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The BLM's 
regulations do not specifically target small businesses. The BLM 
strives to ensure that regulations do not unduly burden business 
entities whether or not they are considered small businesses.
The BLM's mining and grazing rules have traditionally generated the 
greatest concern for small businesses, because most livestock operators 
and mining companies are small entities, as classified by the SBA.
Minerals Management Service
Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities. The 
first is timely and accurate collection, distribution, and accounting 
for revenues associated with mineral production from leased Federal and 
Indian lands. The second is management of the resources of the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) in a manner that provides for safety, 
protection of the environment, and conservation of natural resources. 
Both of these responsibilities are carried out under the provisions of 
the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, the Federal minerals 
leasing acts, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Indian mineral 
leasing acts, and other related statutes.
Our regulatory focus in fiscal year 2008 is directed primarily by 
priorities of the President and Congress. Legislation enacted by 
Congress and signed by the President emphasizes contributing to our 
Nation's energy supply, developing new energy sources, and sharing OCS 
revenues with coastal states affected by offshore oil and gas 
exploration. Through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and the Gulf 
of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), Congress directed MMS 
to:
1. Develop regulations to encourage development of alternative energy 
            and alternate uses of facilities on the OCS; and
2. Distribute a fair share of Federal royalty revenue to States and 
            political

[[Page 69861]]

            subdivisions affected by offshore oil and gas exploration 
            in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our regulatory priorities are to:
 Meet our Indian trust responsibilities
 We have an ongoing trust responsibility to collect and disburse oil 
            and gas royalties on Indian lands. In the fall of 2007, we 
            expect to publish a final rule pertaining to valuation of 
            oil on Indian lands (RIN 1010-AD00).
 Encourage development of alternative energy and alternate uses 
            for existing facilities
 We expect to publish a proposed rule (RIN 1010-AD30) in late 2007 that 
            would provide a framework to regulate development of 
            alternative energy sources and alternate uses of existing 
            facilities on the OCS.
 Promote Gulf of Mexico coastal restoration through revenue 
            sharing with affected States
 We are drafting a proposed rule (RIN 1010-AD46) that would establish a 
            formula and provide a process for allocating a portion of 
            OCS revenues (royalties, rents and bonuses) from leases in 
            specified areas of the Gulf of Mexico to the States of 
            Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas and their coastal 
            political jurisdictions. The funds provided would be used 
            for the purposes of coastal protection, including 
            conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection and 
            mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife or natural 
            resources.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA) to ``strike a balance between protection of the environment and 
agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an 
essential source of energy.''
The principal regulatory provisions contained in title V of SMCRA set 
minimum requirements for obtaining a permit for surface coal mining 
operations, set standards for those operations, require land 
reclamation once mining ends, and require rules and enforcement 
procedures to ensure that the standards are met. Under SMCRA, OSM is 
the primary enforcer of SMCRA's provisions until the States achieve 
``primacy;'' that is, until they demonstrate that their regulatory 
programs meet all the specifications in SMCRA and have regulations 
consistent with those issued by OSM.
When a primacy State takes over the permitting, inspection, and 
enforcement activities of the Federal Government, OSM changes its role 
from regulating mining activities directly to overseeing and evaluating 
State programs. Today, 24 of the 26 coal-producing States have primacy. 
In return for assuming primacy, States are entitled to regulatory 
grants and to grants for reclaiming abandoned mine lands. In addition, 
under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed to 
regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. Thus, OSM 
regulates mining directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands 
in States where no cooperative agreements are in effect, and on Indian 
lands.
OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory program for 
surface coal mining that is safe, cost-effective, and environmentally 
sound. A stable regulatory program provides regulatory certainty so 
that coal companies know what is expected of them and citizens know 
what is intended and how they can participate. During the development 
and maintenance of its program, OSM has recognized the need to (a) 
respond to local conditions, (b) provide flexibility to react to 
technological change, (c) be sensitive to geographic diversity, and (d) 
eliminate burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements that over 
time have proved unnecessary to ensure an effective regulatory program.
OSM's major regulatory objectives for the coming year include:
 Maintaining regulatory certainty so that coal companies know 
            what is expected of them and citizens know what is intended 
            and how they can participate;
 Ensuring an affordable, reliable energy supply while 
            protecting the environment;
 Continued consultation, cooperation, and communication with 
            interested groups during the rulemaking process in order to 
            increase the quality of the rulemaking, and, to the 
            greatest extent possible, reflect consensus on regulatory 
            issues; and
 Completion of ongoing rulemaking initiatives resulting from 
            new legislation, litigation by the coal industry and 
            environmental groups, and efforts by OSM to address areas 
            of concern that have arisen during the course of 
            implementing its regulatory program.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with 
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and 
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Four 
principal mission goals include:
The sustainability of fish and wildlife populations. FWS conserves, 
protects, restores, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plant populations 
entrusted to its care. FWS carries out this mission goal through 
migratory bird conservation at home and abroad; administration of the 
national wildlife refuge system; native fisheries restoration; recovery 
and protection of threatened and endangered species; prevention and 
control of invasive species; and work with our international partners.
Habitat conservation through a network of lands and waters. Cooperating 
with others, FWS strives to conserve an ecologically diverse network of 
lands and waters of various ownership that provide habitat for fish, 
wildlife, and plant resources. This mission goal emphasizes two kinds 
of strategic actions: (1) the development of formal agreements and 
plans with partners who provide habitat for multiple species, and (2) 
the actual conservation work necessary to protect, restore, and enhance 
those habitats vital to fish and wildlife populations. The FWS's 
habitat conservation strategy focuses on the interaction and balance of 
people, lands and waters, and fish and wildlife through an ecosystem 
approach.
Public use and enjoyment. FWS provides opportunities to the public to 
enjoy, understand, and participate in the use and conservation of fish 
and wildlife resources. The Service directs activities on national 
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries that increase 
opportunities for public involvement with fish and wildlife resources. 
Such opportunities include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation, as well as 
hands-on experiences through volunteer conservation activities on FWS-
managed lands.
Partnerships in natural resources. FWS supports and strengthens 
partnerships with tribal, State, and local governments and others in 
their efforts to conserve and enjoy fish, wildlife, and plants and 
habitats, consistent with the President's Executive Order on 
Cooperative Conservation. FWS administers Federal grants to States and 
territories for restoration of fish and wildlife resources

[[Page 69862]]

and has a continuing commitment to work with tribal governments. FWS 
also promotes partnerships with other Federal agencies where common 
goals can be developed. The Service carries out these mission goals 
through several types of regulations. While carrying out its 
responsibility to protect the natural resources entrusted to its care, 
FWS works continually with foreign and State governments, affected 
industries and individuals, and other interested parties to minimize 
any burdens associated with its activities. In carrying out its 
assistance programs, the Service administers regulations to help 
interested parties obtain Federal assistance and then comply with 
applicable laws and Federal requirements.
Some Service regulations permit activities otherwise prohibited by law. 
These regulations allow possession, sale or trade, scientific research, 
and educational activities involving fish and wildlife and their parts 
or products. In general, these regulations supplement State regulations 
and cover activities that involve interstate or foreign commerce.
FWS enforces regulations that govern public access, use, and recreation 
on 547 national wildlife refuges and in national fish hatcheries. The 
Service authorizes only uses compatible with the purpose for which each 
area was established, are consistent with State and local laws where 
practical, and afford the public appropriate economic and recreational 
opportunity.
FWS administers regulations to manage migratory bird resources. 
Annually, the Service issues a regulation on migratory bird hunting 
seasons and bag limits that is developed in partnership with the 
States, tribal governments, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. These 
regulations are necessary to permit migratory bird hunting that would 
otherwise be prohibited by various international treaties.
FWS implements regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to 
fulfill its statutory obligation to identify and conserve species faced 
with extinction and to conserve certain mammals under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. The ESA dictates that the basis for determining 
endangered and threatened species must be limited to biological 
considerations. Regulations enhance the conservation of ESA-listed 
species and help other Federal agencies comply with the ESA. Under 
section 7 of the ESA, all Federal agencies must consult with the 
Service on actions that may jeopardize the continued existence of 
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of their critical habitats. In designating 
critical habitat for listed species, the Service considers biological 
information and economic and other impacts of the designation. Areas 
may be excluded if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, provided that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species.
Finally, FWS is working in partnership with NOAA and the State of 
Hawaii (co-trustees) to develop a joint Monument Management Plan (MMP). 
The Hawaiian Islands and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will be included in the MMP, 
which is due to be developed in draft form by December 2007 (the FWS 
National Wildlife Refuge System previously published a notice in May 
2007 stating that the CCP would be included in the MMP).
National Park Service
The National Park Service conserves the natural and cultural resources 
and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, 
and inspiration of this and future generations. The Service also 
manages a great variety of national and international programs designed 
to help extend the benefits of natural and cultural resources 
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the 
world.
There are 391 units in the National Park System, including national 
parks and monuments; scenic parkways, preserves, trails, riverways, 
seashores, lakeshores, and recreation areas; and historic sites 
associated with important movements, events, and personalities of the 
American past.
The National Park Service develops and implements park management plans 
and staffs the areas under its administration. It relates the natural 
values and historical significance of these areas to the public through 
talks, tours, films, exhibits, and other interpretive media. It 
operates campgrounds and other visitor facilities and provides, usually 
through concessions, lodging, food, and transportation services in many 
areas. The National Park Service also administers the following 
programs: the State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; 
Nationwide Outdoor Recreation coordination and information and State 
comprehensive outdoor recreation planning; planning and technical 
assistance for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the 
National Trails System; natural area programs; Preserve America grant 
program; the National Register of Historic Places; national historic 
landmarks; historic preservation; technical preservation services; 
Historic American Buildings survey; Historic American Engineering 
Record; and interagency archeological services. The National Park 
Service maintains regulations that help manage public use, access, and 
recreation in units of the National Park System. The Service provides 
visitor and resource protection to ensure public safety and prevent 
derogation of resources. The regulatory program develops and reviews 
regulations, maintaining consistency with State and local laws, to 
allow these uses only if they are compatible with the purpose for which 
each area was established. In the upcoming year, the National Park 
Service will complete final rulemaking to implement the Winter Use 
Plans for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and J.D. 
Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway. In addition, the Service's regulatory 
priority is to develop special regulations for individual park areas to 
better manage bicycle use, off-road vehicle use, and off-leash dog 
walking, as well as finishing the final PWC rule at Gateway National 
Recreation Area.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect 
water and related resources in an environmentally and economically 
sound manner in the interest of the American public. To accomplish this 
mission, Reclamation applies management, engineering, and scientific 
skills that result in effective and environmentally sensitive 
solutions.
Reclamation projects provide for some or all of the following 
concurrent purposes: Irrigation water service, municipal and industrial 
water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality 
improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, 
outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and 
control, system optimization, and related uses. Reclamation has 
increased security at its facilities and is implementing its law 
enforcement authorization received in November 2001.
Reclamation's regulatory program is designed to ensure that its mission 
is carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and with an emphasis on 
cooperative problem solving. Reclamation expects to finalize its 
Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed adoption of Colorado 
River Interim Guidelines for

[[Page 69863]]

Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and 
Mead by mid-October 2007 and to publish a Record of Decision by mid-
December 2007.
Office of the Secretary, Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program
The regulatory functions of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program (Restoration Program) stem from requirements under 
section 301(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Section 
301(c) requires the development of natural resource damage assessment 
rules and the biennial review and revisions, as appropriate, of these 
rules. Rules have been promulgated for the optional use by natural 
resource trustees to assess appropriate restoration for injury to 
natural resources caused by hazardous substances. The Restoration 
Program established the Natural Resources Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program Advisory Committee that has provided advice and 
recommendations on DOI's authorities and responsibilities, including 
its responsibility to promulgate regulations in the implementation of 
the National Resource Damage provisions of CERCLA. The proposed change 
to the NRDAR regulations is a targeted regulatory revision to clarify 
the appropriateness of a restoration-based approach for all natural 
resource damages. The revised language responds simultaneously to one 
of the Advisory Committee's recommendations and to a Court remand [see 
Kennecott v. DOI, 88 F. 3rd 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996)]. These regulatory 
changes will provide flexibility to use simpler, more cost effective, 
and more transparent methods to relate natural resource damage claims 
to restoration, rather than monetary damages, and promote an early 
focus on restoration actions. This also addresses the requirement for 
biennial review.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOI--Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




86. PLACEMENT OF EXCESS SPOIL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 1201 et seq


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 780; 30 CFR 784; 30 CFR 816 ; 30 CFR 817


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish permit application requirements and review 
procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil or coal 
mine waste from surface coal mining operations into waters of the 
United States. Among other things, it will require that mine operators 
minimize the creation of excess spoil and the adverse environmental 
impacts resulting from the construction of excess spoil fills. In 
addition, it will apply the buffer requirement to all waters of the 
United States, not just perennial and intermittent streams, clearly 
specify the activities to which that requirement does and does not 
apply, and revise the findings required for a variance from the buffer 
requirement to more closely track the underlying statutory provisions.


Statement of Need:


This rule will provide long-term regulatory stability by clearly 
specifying the activities to which the buffer requirement does and does 
not apply and describing the relationship between our rules and the 
Clean Water Act. It also will promote environmental protection by 
requiring that mining operations be designed to minimize both the 
creation of excess spoil and adverse environmental impacts resulting 
from the disposal of excess spoil and coal mine waste.


Summary of Legal Basis:


General rulemaking authority: Section 201(c)(2) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1211(c)(2), 
directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), acting through 
OSM, to publish and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be 
necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of SMCRA.


Legal basis under SMCRA: Sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and 516(b)(9)(B) of 
SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(10)(B)(i) and 1266(b)(9)(B), require that 
surface coal mining operations be conducted so as to prevent the 
contribution of additional suspended solids to streamflow or runoff 
outside the permit area to the extent possible using the best 
technology currently available. Sections 515(b)(24) and 516(b)(11) of 
SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(24) and 1266(b)(11), require that surface coal 
mining and reclamation operations be conducted to minimize disturbances 
to and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental 
values ``to the extent possible using the best technology currently 
available.`` These statutory provisions form the basis for the new 
rules concerning excess spoil, coal mine waste, and buffer zones for 
waters of the United States.


Alternatives:


Alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Statement include:


A. Alternative 1 -- Changing the Excess Spoil and Stream Buffer Zone 
Regulations (OSM's Preferred Alternative and Most Environmentally 
Protective Alternative):


OSM would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation 
and placement to further lessen the adverse environmental effects 
stemming from excess spoil fill construction. OSM would require the 
applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that (1) the 
operation has been designed to minimize the creation of excess spoil 
and (2) excess spoil fills have been designed to be no larger than 
needed to accommodate the anticipated volume of excess spoil that the 
operation will generate. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to 
consider various alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, 
numbers, and locations of the excess spoil fills vary, and to submit an 
analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would 
result in the least adverse environmental impact.


Similarly, OSM would revise its coal mine waste disposal regulations to 
require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize 
adverse environmental impacts and identify and analyze the 
environmental impacts associated with alternative disposal methods and 
potential locations.


OSM would revise the stream buffer zone regulation to clarify which 
kinds of coal mining activities are subject to the rule. Surface mining 
and reclamation activities occurring adjacent to, but not in, waters of 
the United States would be subject to the rule. Stream crossings, 
sedimentation ponds, excess spoil fills, mining through waters of the 
United States, and coal mine waste disposal facilities

[[Page 69864]]

would not be subject to the prohibition on disturbance of the buffer 
zone.


OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 
100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for 
the rule. The stream buffer zone is principally based on two SMCRA 
provisions: Sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and 515(b)(24). The first 
provision requires, among other things, that surface coal mining 
operations be conducted so as to prevent, to the extent possible using 
the best technology currently available, additional contributions of 
suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area. The 
second provision, Section 515(b)(24), requires that to the extent 
possible using the best technology currently available, surface coal 
mining and reclamation operations must minimize disturbances and 
adverse impacts of the operation on fish, wildlife, and related 
environmental values, and achieve enhancement of such resources where 
practicable. Variances to use of a 100-foot buffer as BTCA could be 
authorized if equally or more effective alternative means to achieve 
the performance standards of sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and (24) would 
be used.


Finally, OSM would also extend the requirement of a 100-foot buffer 
zone to other water bodies in addition to streams, so as to apply the 
rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands (to the extent those water 
bodies constitute ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water 
Act).


As a variant of this alternative, OSM is also considering largely 
retaining the existing buffer zone rule language at 30 CFR 816.57(a) 
and 817.57(a), but modifying the criteria for allowing a variance from 
the 100-foot buffer requirement: The first modification would retain 
the current criterion that requires that the regulatory authority find 
that the ``mining activities will not cause or contribute to the 
violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and 
will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other 
environmental resources of the stream.'' This variant would explicitly 
note that the appropriate Federal and State Clean Water Act agencies in 
accordance with sections 401, 402, or 404 would make this 
determination. The second modification would replace the phrase 
``adversely affect'' with ``significantly degrade.''


B. Alternative 2 -- January 7, 2004 Proposed Rule


OSM would change the excess spoil regulations essentially as described 
in Alternative 1 but would change the stream buffer zone regulations at 
30 CFR 816.56 and 817.57 as described in the January 7, 2004 Federal 
Register notice of the previous proposed stream buffer zone rule [69 FR 
1036].


OSM would retain the prohibition on disturbance of land within 100 feet 
of a perennial or intermittent stream for surface coal mining 
operations but allow the regulatory authority to grant a variance to 
this requirement if the regulatory authority finds in writing that the 
activities would, to the extent possible, use the best technology 
currently available:


(1) Prevent additional contributions of suspended solids to the section 
of stream within 100 feet downstream of the mining activities, and 
outside the area affected by mining activities; and(2) Minimize 
disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and other related 
environmental values of the stream.


C. Alternative 3 -- Change Only the Excess Spoil Regulations


OSM would change the excess spoil regulations as described in 
Alternative 1. No changes would be made to the stream buffer zone 
regulations.


D. Alternative 4 -- Change Only the Stream Buffer Zone Regulations


OSM would change the stream buffer zone regulations as described in 
Alternative 1. No changes would be made to the excess spoil 
regulations.


E. Alternative 5 -- No Action Alternative:


OSM would not adopt any new rules. The current regulations applicable 
to excess spoil generation and fill construction and the stream buffer 
zone would remain unchanged.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is anticipated that some of the regulatory changes will result in an 
increase in the costs and burdens placed on coal operators and on some 
primacy States. We estimate that the total annual increase for 
operators would be approximately $240,500, and for the primacy States 
the total annual increase is estimated at approximately $24,200. These 
increases are a result of the requirement to document the analyses and 
findings required by the regulatory changes. This estimated increase in 
costs would likely only affect those coal operators and States 
(Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia) located in the steep slope 
terrain of the central Appalachian coalfields, where the bulk of excess 
spoil is generated. Because all of the regulatory agencies in the 
Appalachian coalfields have implemented policies to minimize the volume 
of excess spoil, no significant additional costs of implementing these 
regulatory changes are anticipated other than those required to 
document the strengthened requirements to consider all alternative 
excess spoil construction and disposal sites.


One of the primary benefits of the rule is an expected reduction in the 
placement of excess spoil with resulting positive environmental 
consequences. The rule is also expected to clarify mining requirements 
for steep slope and mountaintop mining operations in Appalachia and 
thereby establish regulatory certainty for the coal industry, which has 
been hesitant to expend large sums of money on this type of mining 
operations because of legal uncertainty.


Risks:


If the proposed rule is not adopted, the controversy and uncertainty 
concerning the meaning of the existing stream buffer zone rule may 
continue to exist. That uncertainty creates the risk of additional 
litigation concerning the existing rule, which could result in 
regulatory instability and a reluctance on the part of coal mining 
companies to invest in new mining projects. There is also the risk that 
not all of the environmental benefits of the excess spoil minimization 
rules would be achieved. Finally, failure to adopt this rule would 
result in the retention of legally and technically obsolete provisions 
of the existing rules.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/07/04                     69 FR 1036
NPRM Comment Period End         03/08/04
Second NPRM                     11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 69865]]

Agency Contact:
Dennis Rice
Regulatory Analyst
Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
1951 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 208-2829
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1029-AC04
_______________________________________________________________________



DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




87. OIL SHALE LEASING AND OPERATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005


CFR Citation:


43 CFR 3900


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 envisions a 3-step approach to the 
development of oil shale resources. The first step is the creation of a 
limited Research, Development, and Demonstration (RDD) Leasing Program 
designed to evaluate and test promising oil shale technology. Step two 
in the process is the completion of a Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for leasing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands on public lands, with 
an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within the 
States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The third step in the process is 
the creation of rules regulating the leasing and development of the oil 
shale. This rule would create the regulations necessary to develop 
converted RDD leases and make commercial exploration, leasing, and 
development possible.


Statement of Need:


Currently there are no regulations in place that allow leasing and 
development of oil shale resources. The rule would establish the 
regulatory framework allowing commercial leasing and development of oil 
shale.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that the 
Secretary of the Interior publish final regulations establishing a 
commercial leasing program for Oil Shale and Tar Sands.


Alternatives:


There is no alternative to creation of the regulations. Creation of the 
regulations is mandated by sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


BLM anticipates the following benefit: Increased Federal revenue and 
domestic fuel production, decreased dependency on energy imports, and 
the expansion of local economies through employment and taxes.


The major categories of costs include: BLM administrative costs, 
including enforcement and monitoring, and compliance costs for lessees.


Risks:


Development of the oil shale resources will place additional demands on 
the lands and localities containing the oil shale resources. These 
demands will result in increased resource conflicts (i.e., oil and gas, 
nahcolite, and wildlife) and pressure on local governments/
infrastructure (i.e., law enforcement, schools, hospitals and roads).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/25/06                    71 FR 50378
ANPRM Comment Period End        09/25/06
Comment Period Extended         09/26/06                    71 FR 56085
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/25/06
NPRM                            03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Mitchell Leverette
Deputy Division Chief, Solid Minerals
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 452-5088
Fax: 202 653-7397
Email: [email protected]

Ted A. Murphy
Division Chief-Solid Minerals-WO-320
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1620 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 452-0350
Fax: 202 653-7397
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1004-AD90
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-S

[[Page 69866]]




DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The first and overriding priority of the Department of Justice is to 
prevent, detect, disrupt, and dismantle terrorism while preserving 
constitutional liberties. To fulfill this mission, the Department is 
devoting all the resources necessary and utilizing all legal 
authorities to eliminate terrorist networks, to prevent terrorist 
attacks, and to bring to justice those who kill Americans in the name 
of murderous ideologies. It is engaged in an aggressive arrest and 
detention campaign of lawbreakers with a single objective: To get 
terrorists off the street before they can harm more Americans. In 
addition to using investigative, prosecutorial, and other law 
enforcement activities, the Department is also using the regulatory 
process to enhance its ability to prevent future terrorist acts and 
safeguard our borders while ensuring that America remains a place of 
welcome to foreigners who come here to visit, work, or live peacefully. 
The Department also has wide-ranging responsibilities for criminal 
investigations, law enforcement, and prosecutions and, in certain 
specific areas, makes use of the regulatory process to better carry out 
the Department's law enforcement missions.
 The Department of Justice's regulatory priorities focus in particular 
on a major regulatory initiative in the area of civil rights. 
Specifically, the Department is planning to revise its regulations 
implementing titles II and III of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 
However, in addition to this specific initiative, several other 
components of the Department carry out important responsibilities 
through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are 
not singled out for specific attention in this regulatory plan, those 
components carry out key roles in implementing the Department's anti-
terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
Civil Rights
 The Department is planning to revise its regulations implementing 
titles II and III of the ADA to amend the ADA Standards for Accessible 
Design (28 CFR part 36, appendix A) to be consistent with the revised 
ADA accessibility guidelines published by the U.S. Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) in final form 
on July 23, 2004. (The Access Board had issued the guidelines in 
proposed form in November 1999 and in final draft form in April 2002.) 
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability 
by public entities, and title III prohibits such discrimination by 
places of public accommodation and requires accessible design and 
construction of places of public accommodation and commercial 
facilities. In implementing these provisions, the Department of Justice 
is required by statute to publish regulations that include design 
standards that are consistent with the guidelines developed by the 
Access Board. The Access Board was engaged in a multiyear effort to 
revise and amend its accessibility guidelines. The goals of this 
project were: 1) To address issues such as unique State and local 
facilities (e.g., prisons, courthouses), recreation facilities, play 
areas, and building elements specifically designed for children's use 
that were not addressed in the initial guidelines; 2) to promote 
greater consistency between the Federal accessibility requirements and 
the model codes; and 3) to provide greater consistency between the ADA 
guidelines and the guidelines that implement the Architectural Barriers 
Act. The Access Board issued guidelines that address all of these 
issues. Therefore, to comply with the ADA requirement that the ADA 
standards remain consistent with the Access Board's guidelines, the 
Department will propose to adopt revised ADA Standards for Accessible 
Design that are consistent with the revised ADA Accessibility 
Guidelines.
 The Department also plans to review its regulations implementing title 
II and title III (28 CFR parts 35 and 36) to ensure that the 
requirements applicable to new construction and alterations under title 
II are consistent with those applicable under title III, to review and 
update the regulations to reflect the current state of law, and to 
ensure the Department's compliance with section 610 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
 The Department is planning to adopt and interpret the Access Board's 
revised and amended guidelines in three steps. The first step of the 
rulemaking process was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2004, at 69 FR 
58768, which the Department believes will simplify and clarify the 
preparation of the proposed rule to follow. In addition to giving 
notice of the proposed rule that will adopt revised ADA accessibility 
standards, the advance notice raised two sets of questions for public 
comment, and proposed a framework for the regulatory analysis that will 
accompany the proposed rule. One set of questions addresses 
interpretive matters related to adopting revised ADA accessibility 
standards, such as what should be the effective date of the revised 
standards and how best to apply the revised standards to existing 
facilities that have already complied with the current ADA standards. 
Another set of questions was directed to collecting data about the 
benefits and costs of applying the new standards to existing 
facilities. The second step of the rulemaking process will be a 
proposed rule proposing to adopt revised ADA accessibility standards 
consistent with the Access Board's revised and amended guidelines that 
will, in addition to revising the current ADA Standards for Accessible 
Design, supplement the standards with specifications for prisons, 
jails, court houses, legislative facilities, building elements designed 
for use by children, play areas, and recreation facilities. The 
proposed rule will also offer proposed answers to the interpretive 
questions raised in the advance notice and present an initial 
regulatory assessment; it will be followed by a final rule, the third 
step of the process.
 The Department's revised and supplemented regulations under the ADA 
will affect small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and 
other small organizations (together, small entities). The Access Board 
has prepared regulatory assessments (including cost impact analyses) to 
accompany its new guidelines, which estimate the annual compliance 
costs that will be incurred by covered entities with regard to 
construction of new facilities. These assessments include the effect on 
small entities and will apply to new construction under the 
Department's revised and supplemented regulations. With respect to 
existing facilities, the Department will prepare an additional 
regulatory assessment of the estimated annual cost of compliance with 
regard to existing facilities. In this process, the Department will 
give careful consideration to the cost effects on small entities, 
including the solicitation of comments specifically designed to obtain 
compliance data relating to small entities.
Other Department Initiatives
1. Immigration Matters
 On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), 
the responsibility for immigration enforcement and for providing 
immigration-related services and benefits such as naturalization and 
work

[[Page 69867]]

authorization was transferred from the Justice Department's Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). However, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals 
in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) remain part of 
the Department of Justice; the immigration judges adjudicate 
approximately 300,000 cases each year to determine whether the aliens 
should be ordered removed or should be granted some form of relief from 
removal. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a continuing role in the 
conduct of removal hearings, the granting of relief from removal, and 
the detention or release of aliens pending completion of removal 
proceedings. The Attorney General also is responsible for civil 
litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
 In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to 
revise and update the regulations relating to removal proceedings in 
order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the hearings in 
resolving issues relating to removal of aliens and the granting of 
relief from removal.
 On August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced a series of 
initiatives to improve the quality of adjudications before immigration 
judges, in response to the review of the Immigration Courts and the 
Board of Immigration Appeals which he ordered. Several regulations will 
implement different aspects of the Attorney General's initiatives.
 Also, the Department of Justice will be working with the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) to implement the increase in civil penalties 
for employer sanctions as proposed by DHS.
2. Criminal Law Enforcement
 In large part, the Department's criminal law enforcement components do 
not rely on the rulemaking process to carry out their assigned 
missions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, is 
responsible for protecting and defending the United States against 
terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the 
criminal laws of the United States, and providing leadership and 
criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and 
international agencies and partners. Only in very limited contexts does 
the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, the FBI is currently updating 
its National Instant Criminal Background Check System regulations to 
allow criminal justice agencies to conduct background checks prior to 
the return of firearms.
 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issues 
regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and 
commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and regulations are 
designed to:
 Curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms, and to 
            assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement 
            agencies in reducing crime and violence;
 Facilitate investigations of violations of Federal explosives 
            laws and arson-for-profit schemes;
 Regulate the firearms and explosives industries, including 
            systems for licenses and permits;
 Assure the collection of all National Firearms Act (NFA) 
            firearms taxes and obtain a high level of voluntary 
            compliance with all laws governing the firearms industry; 
            and
 Assist the States in their efforts to eliminate interstate 
            trafficking in, and the sale and distribution of, 
            cigarettes and alcohol in avoidance of Federal and State 
            taxes.
 ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2008, to seek 
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and 
explosives. ATF continues analysis of its regulations governing storage 
requirements for explosives, including fireworks explosive materials. 
ATF plans to issue final regulations implementing the provisions of the 
Safe Explosives Act, title XI, subtitle C, of Public Law 107-296, the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (enacted November 25, 2002).
 Combating the proliferation of methamphetamine and preventing the 
diversion of prescription drugs for illicit purposes are among the 
Attorney General's top drug enforcement priorities. The Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for controlling abuse 
of narcotics and dangerous drugs, while ensuring adequate supplies for 
legitimate medical purposes. DEA accomplishes its objectives through 
coordination with State, local, and other Federal officials in drug 
enforcement activities, development and maintenance of drug 
intelligence systems, regulation of legitimate controlled substances, 
and enforcement coordination and intelligence-gathering activities with 
foreign government agencies. DEA continues to develop and enhance 
regulatory controls relating to the diversion control requirements for 
controlled substances.
 In the past, drug traffickers have been able to easily obtain large 
quantities of the List I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and 
phenylpropanolamine, and others used in the clandestine production of 
methamphetamine from both foreign and domestic sources. One of DEA's 
key regulatory initiatives has been implementation of the Combat 
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA), which further regulates 
the importation, manufacture, and retail sale of ephedrine, 
pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine and drug products containing 
these three chemicals. CMEA imposes sales limits for ephedrine, 
pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine at the retail level, 
establishes quotas at the manufacturing level, and limits the 
importation of these chemicals to that which is necessary to provide 
for medical, scientific, and other legitimate purposes. CMEA also 
provides investigators with necessary identifying information regarding 
manufacturers and importers of these chemicals. Regulations pertaining 
to implementation of CMEA include, but are not limited to:
 ``Retail Sales of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products; Self-
            Certification of Regulated Sellers of Scheduled Listed 
            Chemical Products'' [RIN 1117-AB05]
 ``Implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 
            2005; Notice of Transfers Following Importation or 
            Exportation'' [RIN 1117-AB06]
 ``Import and Production Quotas for Certain List I Chemicals'' 
            [RIN 1117-AB08]
 ``Elimination of Exemptions for Chemical Mixtures Containing 
            the List I Chemicals Ephedrine and/or Pseudoephedrine'' 
            [RIN 1117-AB11]
 ``Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005: Fee for Self-
            Certification for Regulated Sellers of Scheduled Listed 
            Chemical Products'' [RIN 1117-AB13]
 ``Record Requirements for Chemical Distributors'' [RIN 1117-
            AB14]
In addition to its implementation of CMEA, DEA is working to curb the 
diversion of other chemicals important in the illicit manufacture of 
controlled substances. DEA recently imposed greater restrictions on 
iodine, moving this chemical from List II to List I,

[[Page 69868]]

reducing the threshold for regulated transactions to zero, adding 
import and export regulatory controls, and establishing a concentration 
limit for chemical mixtures containing iodine. See RIN 1117-AA93.
 The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues regulations to enforce the 
Federal laws relating to its mission: to protect society by confining 
offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based 
facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately 
secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities 
to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 
12 months, in addition to other regulatory objectives aimed at 
accomplishing its mission, the Bureau will continue its ongoing efforts 
to:improve drug abuse treatment services and early release 
consideration; improve disciplinary procedures; and reduce the 
introduction of contraband through various means (such as clarifying 
drug and alcohol surveillance testing programs). In addition, the 
Bureau will finalize regulations relating to limiting the 
communications of inmates identified as having an identifiable link to 
terrorist-related activities.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




88. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PUBLIC 
ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; 42 USC 12186(b)


CFR Citation:


28 CFR 36


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 1991, the Department of Justice published regulations to implement 
title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Those 
regulations include the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which 
establish requirements for the design and construction of accessible 
facilities that are consistent with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (Access Board). In the time since the regulations 
became effective, the Department of Justice and the Access Board have 
each gathered a great deal of information regarding the implementation 
of the Standards. The Access Board began the process of revising ADAAG 
a number of years ago. It published new ADAAG in final form on July 23, 
2004, after having published guidelines in proposed form in November 
1999 and in draft final form in April 2002. In order to maintain 
consistency between ADAAG and the ADA Standards, the Department is 
reviewing its title III regulations and expects to propose, in one or 
more stages, to adopt revised ADA Standards consistent with the final 
revised ADAAG and to make related revisions to the Department's title 
III regulations. In addition to maintaining consistency between ADAAG 
and the Standards, the purpose of this review and these revisions will 
be to more closely coordinate with voluntary standards; to clarify 
areas which, through inquiries and comments to the Department's 
technical assistance phone lines, have been shown to cause confusion; 
to reflect evolving technologies in areas affected by the Standards; 
and to comply with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which 
requires agencies once every 10 years to review rules that have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities.


The first step in adopting revised Standards was an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on 
September 30, 2004, at 69 FR 58768, issued under both title II and 
title III. The Department believes that the advance notice will 
simplify and clarify the preparation of the proposed rule to follow. In 
addition to giving notice that the proposed rule will adopt revised ADA 
accessibility standards, the advance notice raised questions for public 
comment and proposed a framework for the regulatory analysis that will 
accompany the proposed rule.


The adoption of revised ADAAG will also serve to address changes to the 
ADA Standards previously proposed in RIN 1190-AA26, RIN 1190-AA38, RIN 
1190-AA47, and RIN 1190-AA50, all of which have now been withdrawn from 
the Unified Agenda. These changes will include technical specifications 
for facilities designed for use by children, accessibility standards 
for State and local government facilities, play areas, and recreation 
facilities, all of which had previously been published by the Access 
Board.


The timetable set forth below refers to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking that the Department will issue as the second step of the 
above described title III rulemaking. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking will be issued under both title II and title III. For 
purposes of the title III regulation, this notice will propose to adopt 
revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design consistent with the minimum 
guidelines of the revised ADAAG. The second stage will initiate the 
review of the regulation in accordance with the requirements of section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including title III. Section 306(c) 
of the ADA requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations 
implementing title III that are consistent with the Access Board's ADA 
guidelines. Because this rule will adopt standards that are consistent 
with the minimum guidelines issued by the Access Board, this rule is 
required by statute. Similarly, the Department's review of its title 
III regulation is being undertaken to comply with the requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by SBREFA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation. 
Pursuant to SBREFA, the Department's title III regulation will consider 
whether alternatives to the currently published requirements are 
appropriate.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Access Board has analyzed the effect of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA

[[Page 69869]]

and has determined that they constitute a significant regulatory action 
for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board's determination 
will apply as well to the revised ADA standards published by the 
Department.


As part of its revised ADAAG, the Access Board made available in 
summary form an updated regulatory assessment to accompany the final 
revised ADAAG. The Access Board's regulatory assessment will also apply 
to the Department's proposed adoption of revised ADAAG as ADA standards 
insofar as the standards apply to new construction and alteration. The 
Department will also prepare an additional regulatory assessment of the 
estimated annual cost of compliance with the revised standards with 
regard to existing facilities that are subject to title III of the ADA. 
Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 
1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final 
Federal regulation that ``establishes or enforces any statutory rights 
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' Accordingly, this 
rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.


Risks:


Without the proposed changes to the Department's title III regulation, 
the ADA Standards will fail to be consistent with the ADAAG.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/30/04                    69 FR 58768
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/28/05
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/19/05                     70 FR 2992
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/31/05
NPRM                            01/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


RIN 1190-AA44, which will effect changes to 28 CFR 36 (the Department's 
regulation implementing title III of the ADA), is related to another 
rulemaking of the Civil Rights Division, RIN 1190-AA46, which will 
effect changes to 28 CFR 35 (the Department's regulation implementing 
title II of the ADA).


Agency Contact:
John L. Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, DC 20035
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--CRT



89. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT SERVICES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


28 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 26, 1991, the Department published its final rule implementing 
title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). On November 16, 
1999, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (Access Board) issued its first comprehensive review of the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which form the basis of the 
Department's ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The Access Board 
published an Availability of Draft Final Guidelines on April 2, 2002, 
and published the ADA Accessibility Guidelines in final form on July 
23, 2004. The ADA (section 204(c)) requires the Department's standards 
to be consistent with the Access Board's guidelines. In order to 
maintain consistency between ADAAG and the Standards, the Department is 
reviewing its title II regulations and expects to propose, in one or 
more stages, to adopt revised standards consistent with new ADAAG. The 
Department will also, in one or more stages, review its title II 
regulations for purposes of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act and make related changes to its title II regulations.


In addition to the statutory requirement for the rule, the social and 
economic realities faced by Americans with disabilities dictate the 
need for the rule. Individuals with disabilities cannot participate in 
the social and economic activities of the Nation without being able to 
access the programs and services of State and local governments. 
Further, amending the Department's ADA regulations will improve the 
format and usability of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design; 
harmonize the differences between the ADA Standards and national 
consensus standards and model codes; update the ADA Standards to 
reflect technological developments that meet the needs of persons with 
disabilities; and coordinate future ADA Standards revisions with 
national standards and model code organizations. As a result, the 
overarching goal of improving access for persons with disabilities so 
that they can benefit from the goods, services, and activities provided 
to the public by covered entities will be met.


The first part of the rulemaking process was an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on September 30, 
2004, at 69 FR 58768, issued under both title II and title III. The 
Department believes the advance notice will simplify and clarify the 
preparation of the proposed rule to follow. In addition to giving 
notice of the proposed rule that will adopt revised ADA accessibility 
standards, the advance notice raised questions for public comment and 
proposed a framework for the regulatory analysis that will accompany 
the proposed rule.


The adoption of revised ADA Standards consistent with revised ADAAG 
will also serve to address changes to the ADA Standards previously 
proposed under RIN 1190-AA26, RIN 1190-AA38, RIN 1190-AA47, and RIN 
1190-AA50, all of which have now been withdrawn from the Unified 
Agenda. These changes will include technical specifications for 
facilities designed for use by children, accessibility standards for 
State and local government facilities, play areas, and recreation 
facilities, all of which had previously been published by the Access 
Board.


The timetable set forth below refers to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking that the Department will issue as the second step of the 
above-described title II rulemaking. This notice of proposed rulemaking 
will be issued under both title II and title III. For purposes of the

[[Page 69870]]

title II regulation alone, this notice will also propose to eliminate 
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) as an alternative to 
the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including title II. Section 204(c) 
of the ADA requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations 
implementing title II that are consistent with the Access Board's ADA 
guidelines. Because this rule will adopt standards that are consistent 
with the minimum guidelines issued by the Access Board, this rule is 
required by statute. Similarly, the Department's review of its title II 
regulations is being undertaken to comply with the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation as 
described in the Statement of Need above. Pursuant to SBREFA, the 
Department's title II regulation will consider whether alternatives to 
the currently published requirements are appropriate.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the goals of 
the ADA are met. Promulgating this amendment to the Department's ADA 
regulations will ensure that entities subject to the ADA will have one 
comprehensive regulation to follow. Currently, entities subject to 
title II of the ADA (State and local governments) have a choice between 
following the Department's ADA Standards for title III, which were 
adopted for places of public accommodation and commercial facilities 
and which do not contain standards for common State and local 
government buildings (such as courthouses and prisons), or the Uniform 
Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). By developing one comprehensive 
standard, the Department will eliminate the confusion that arises when 
governments try to mesh two different standards. As a result, the 
overarching goal of improving access to persons with disabilities will 
be better served.


The Access Board has analyzed the effect of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA 
and has determined that they constitute a significant regulatory action 
for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board's determination 
will apply as well to the revised ADA Standards published by the 
Department.


As part of its revised ADAAG, the Access Board made available in 
summary form an updated regulatory assessment to accompany the final 
revised ADAAG. The Access Board's regulatory assessment will also apply 
to the Department's proposed adoption of revised ADAAG as ADA standards 
insofar as the standards apply to new construction and alteration. The 
Department will also prepare an additional regulatory assessment of the 
estimated annual cost of compliance with the revised standards with 
regard to existing facilities that are subject to title III of the ADA.


The Access Board has made every effort to lessen the impact of its 
proposed guidelines on State and local governments but recognizes that 
the guidelines will have some federalism effects. These effects are 
discussed in the Access Board's regulatory assessment, which also 
applies to the Department's proposed rule. Section 4(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), excludes from coverage 
under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that 
``establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national 
origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' Accordingly, this rulemaking is 
not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/30/04                    69 FR 58768
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/28/05
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/19/05                     70 FR 2992
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/31/05
NPRM                            01/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Additional Information:


RIN 1190-AA46, which will effect changes to 28 CFR 35 (the Department's 
regulation implementing title II of the ADA), is related to another 
rulemaking of the Civil Rights Division, RIN 1190-AA44, which will 
effect changes to 28 CFR 36 (the Department's regulation implementing 
title III of the ADA). By adopting revised ADAAG, this rulemaking will, 
among other things, address changes to the ADA Standards previously 
proposed in RINs 1190-AA26, 1190-AA36, and 1190-AA38, which have been 
withdrawn and merged into this rulemaking. These changes include 
accessibility standards for State and local government facilities that 
had been previously published by the Access Board (RIN 1190-AA26) and 
the timing for the compliance of State and local governments with the 
curb-cut requirements of the title II regulation (RIN 1190-AA36). In 
order to consolidate regulatory actions implementing title II of the 
ADA, on February 15, 2000, RINs 1190-AA26 and 1190-AA38 were merged 
into this rulemaking and on March 5, 2002, RIN 1190-AA36 was merged 
into this rulemaking.


Agency Contact:
John L. Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, DC 20035
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA46
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-S

[[Page 69871]]




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)



2007 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Protecting America's Workers
Since its creation in 1913, the Department of Labor has been guided by 
the idea that workers deserve safe and healthy workplaces, as well as 
protection of their wages and pensions. The Secretary of Labor has made 
protecting America's workers a top priority, and has combined tough 
enforcement with compliance assistance to ensure the health, safety and 
economic security of the American workforce. While the vast majority of 
employers work hard to keep their employees and workplaces safe and 
secure, strong enforcement is needed to protect employees whose 
employers otherwise would not comply with safety and health, wage, and 
pension laws and regulations.
The Secretary's compliance assistance initiative provides employers 
with the knowledge and tools they need to carry out their legal 
obligations, and is based on the proven success that comes when 
government, employers, unions and employees work together. Educating 
and encouraging employers helps workers far more than enforcement 
alone, since no enforcement process can possibly identify every 
violation of the law, and fines and penalties can never fully redress 
losses of life, health, and economic well-being.
The Department is committed to aggressively enforcing the laws that 
protect employees, including the rights of workers returning to their 
jobs after military service. Workers also need information about 
protection of their health insurance and pension benefits. In addition, 
DOL has responsibilities beyond worker protection. The Department 
recognizes that workers need constant updating of skills to compete in 
a changing marketplace. DOL helps employers and workers bridge the gap 
between the requirements of new high-technology jobs and the skills of 
the workers who are needed to fill them.
The Secretary of Labor's Regulatory Plan for Accomplishing These 
Objectives
In general, DOL tries to help employees and employers meet their needs 
in a cooperative fashion. DOL will maintain health and safety standards 
and protect employees by working with the regulated community.
DOL considers the following proposals to be proactive, common sense 
approaches to the issues most clearly needing regulatory attention.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
DOL has identified 21 high priority items for regulatory action. Nine 
items address health and safety issues, which are central to DOL's 
mission and which represent a major focus of the Secretary. Two 
agencies, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), are responsible 
for these initiatives.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) administers the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), which was 
recently amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act 
of 2006 (MINER Act). MSHA is undertaking a number of significant 
regulatory actions to continue to reduce deaths, injuries, and 
illnesses, and ensure safe and healthful workplaces for the Nation's 
miners.
On May 22, 2007, MSHA published an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) 
on Sealing of Abandoned Areas (RIN 1219-AB52), to protect miners 
working in underground coal mines from the grave danger that they face 
when underground seals separating abandoned areas from active workings 
fail. The ETS includes requirements to strengthen the design, the 
construction, the maintenance, and the repair of seals; requirements 
for sampling and controlling atmospheres behind seals; and requirements 
for increasing the overpressure of seals in accordance with the MINER 
Act. MSHA expects to issue a Final Rule on Sealing of Abandoned Areas 
by February 2008.
On September 6, 2007, MSHA published separate proposed rules to address 
Mine Rescue Teams (RIN 1219-AB53) in underground coal mines, and Mine 
Rescue Team Equipment (RIN 1219-AB56) in underground coal and metal and 
nonmetal mines. The proposed Mine Rescue Teams rule includes provisions 
for the number, training, composition and certification of mine rescue 
teams in accordance with the MINER Act, and will be completed in 2007. 
The proposed Mine Rescue Team Equipment rule would amend existing 
standards to reflect advances in mine rescue team equipment technology, 
and will be completed in early 2008.
MSHA is continuing work on its Asbestos Exposure Limit (1219-AB24 final 
rule), which will provide increased protection to miners potentially 
exposed to health hazards associated with asbestos. The final rule 
lowers miners' permissible exposure limit for asbestos from 2.0 fibers 
per cubic centimeters (f/cc) to 0.1 f/cc.
MSHA is also continuing to work on its Diesel Particulate Matter: 
Conversion Factor from Total Carbon to Elemental Carbon (RIN 1219-AB55) 
rulemaking, which will establish the most appropriate measure for 
determining compliance with the final DPM exposure limit.
MSHA intends to publish a Request for Information on the use of the 
Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (RIN: 1219-AB48) based upon a research 
report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
This new technology is designed to continuously measure a coal miner's 
exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Such information, available 
immediately at the miner's work location, has the potential to reduce 
the occurrence of respirable lung disease among coal miners.
MSHA may initiate a new rulemaking on Refuge Alternatives in 
Underground Coal Mines in accordance with the MINER Act pending 
completion of a report by NIOSH due December 2007.
MSHA may initiate a new rulemaking on the Utilization of Belt Air and 
the Composition and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in 
Underground Coal Mining in accordance with the MINER Act pending 
completion of a technical study panel report due December 2007.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees a 
wide range of measures in the public and private sectors. OSHA is 
committed to establishing clear and sensible priorities, and to 
continuing to reduce occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses.
OSHA's first initiative in the area of health standards addresses 
worker exposures to crystalline silica (RIN 1218-AB70). This substance 
is one of the most widely found in workplaces, and data indicate that 
silica exposure causes silicosis, a debilitating respiratory disease, 
and perhaps cancer as well. OSHA has obtained input from small 
businesses about regulatory approaches through a Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel, and the Panel 
report was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA on December 19, 
2003. OSHA plans to complete an external peer

[[Page 69872]]

review of the health effects and risk assessment by January 2008.
OSHA has initiated rulemaking to revise its Hazard Communication 
Standard (HCS) (RIN 1218-AC20) to adopt provisions to make it 
consistent with a globally harmonized approach to hazard communication. 
First promulgated in 1983, the HCS requires chemical manufacturers and 
importers of chemicals to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they 
produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data sheets to 
communicate the hazards and protective measures to users of their 
products. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces 
are required to have a hazard communication program, including labels 
on containers, safety data sheets, and employee training. OSHA 
estimates that the HCS covers over 945,000 hazardous chemical products 
in 7 million American workplaces. OSHA and other Federal agencies have 
participated in long-term international negotiations to develop the 
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 
(GHS). Adopted by the United Nations in 2003, the GHS includes 
harmonized criteria for health, physical and environmental hazards, as 
well as specifications for container labels and safety data sheets. 
There is an international goal to have as many countries as possible 
implement the GHS by 2008. Revising the HCS to be consistent with the 
GHS is expected to improve the communication of hazards in American 
workplaces, as well as facilitate international trade in chemicals.
OSHA is continuing work on its rulemaking to update the 1971 Cranes and 
Derricks Standards (RIN 1218-AC01) using the recommendations of a 
negotiated rulemaking committee. The committee submitted its 
recommendations in July 2004. A Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act panel was convened in August 2006 to obtain input from 
small businesses; a report summarizing the panel's findings was issued 
in October 2006. The Agency plans to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in January 2008.
Protection of pension and health benefits continues to be a priority of 
the Secretary of Labor. Consistent with the Secretary's priorities for 
FY 2007, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) will 
focus on compliance assistance for pension and group health plans 
through issuance of guidance. Specific initiatives for group health 
plans include guidance on the application of the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) access, portability and 
renewability provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
(ERISA) (RIN 1210-AA54). With respect to pension plans, the Department 
will be developing guidance to encourage the automatic enrollment of 
participants in 40l(k) plans and the use of default investment options 
that will enhance retirement savings (RIN 1210-AB10).
The Department also will be establishing standards to improve the 
disclosure of information concerning plan service provider fees and 
potential conflicts of interest to assist fiduciaries and participants 
in making informed decisions about their plans (RIN 1210-AB07 and 1210-
AB08). In addition, the Department is developing guidance on several 
initiatives relating to the implementation of the Pension Protection 
Act of 2006, including investment advice guidance (RIN 1210-AB13) and 
regulations relating to individual pension benefit statements (RIN 
1210-AB20). ERISA's requirements affect private sector employee benefit 
plans including an estimated 683,000 pension benefit plans, covering 
approximately 106 million participants; an estimated 2.5 million group 
health benefit plans, covering 137 million participants and dependents; 
and similar numbers of other welfare benefits plans and participants.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has four priority 
regulatory initiatives that reflect the Secretary's emphasis on meeting 
the needs of the 21st century workforce. These regulations include: (1) 
the Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, 
Amendment of Regulations (RIN 1205-AB50) which will update the 
Apprenticeship regulations that have not been updated since promulgated 
in 1977; (2) the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) 
regulations (RIN 1205-AB48 and 1205-AB47), due to the issuance of the 
Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, enacted October 2006, which 
make substantial changes to the current SCSEP; (3) YouthBuild 
regulations (RIN 1205-AB49), which arise from Congress transferring 
oversight and administration of the YouthBuild Program to the U.S. 
Department of Labor in accordance with the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 
2006, enacted in September 2006; and (4) the Federal-State Unemployment 
Compensation Program; Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment 
and Wages (RIN 1205-AB51), which amends current regulations to provide 
that individuals can only establish Combined-Wage Claims in a State in 
which they have worked.
The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) has one priority 
regulatory initiative. ESA's initiative pertains to regulations issued 
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that were also discussed 
in OMB's 2001, 2002 and 2004 Reports to Congress on the Costs and 
Benefits of Regulations. ESA continues to review the issues raised by 
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World 
Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002), and the decisions of other courts, for 
possible revisions to the FMLA regulations.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




90. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993; CONFORM TO THE SUPREME 
COURT'S RAGSDALE DECISION

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 2654


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 825


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 
U.S. 81 (2002), invalidated regulatory provisions issued under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) pertaining to the effects of an 
employer's failure to timely designate leave that is taken by an 
employee as being covered by the FMLA. The Department intends to 
address this and decisions of other courts in proposed revisions to the 
FMLA regulations.


Statement of Need:


The FMLA requires covered employers to grant eligible employees up to 
12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave a year for specified family 
and

[[Page 69873]]

medical reasons, and to maintain group health benefits during the leave 
as if the employees continued to work instead of taking leave. When an 
eligible employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must restore 
the employee to the same or an equivalent job with equivalent pay, 
benefits, and other conditions of employment. FMLA makes it unlawful 
for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of 
any right provided by the FMLA.


The FMLA regulations require employers to designate if an employee's 
use of leave is counting against the employee's FMLA leave entitlement, 
and to notify the employee of that designation (29 CFR 825.208). 
Section 825.700(a) of the regulations provides that if an employee 
takes paid or unpaid leave and the employer does not designate the 
leave as FMLA leave, the leave taken does not count against the 
employee's 12 weeks of FMLA leave entitlement.


On March 19, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (2002). In that 
decision, the Court invalidated regulatory provisions pertaining to the 
effects of an employer's failure to timely designate leave that is 
taken by an employee as being covered by the FMLA. The Court ruled that 
29 CFR 825.700(a) was invalid absent evidence that the employer's 
failure to designate the leave as FMLA leave interfered with the 
employee's exercise of FMLA rights. The Department intends to propose 
revisions to address issues raised by this and other judicial 
decisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is issued pursuant to section 404 of the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2654.


Alternatives:


After completing a review and analysis of the Supreme Court's decision 
in Ragsdale and other judicial decisions, regulatory alternatives may 
be developed for notice-and-comment rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
RFI                             12/01/06                    71 FR 69504
RFI Comment Period End          02/16/07                     72 FR 3775
RFI Comment Report              06/28/07                    72 FR 35550
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Paul DeCamp
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building, Room S3502
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1302
RIN: 1215-AB35
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




91. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 3056 et seq


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 641


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109-365, enacted 
on October 17, 2006, contains provisions amending Title V of that Act, 
which authorizes the Senior Community Service Employment program 
(SCSEP). The amendments, effective July 1, 2007, make substantial 
changes to the current SCSEP provisions in the Older Americans Act, 
including new requirements relating to performance accountability, 
income eligibility for program participation, competition of national 
grants and services to participants.


This proposed NPRM consists of 8 subparts: subpart A--Definitions; 
Subpart B--Coordination with the Workforce Investment Act; subpart C--
the State Plan; subpart D--Grant Application, Eligibility, and Award 
Requirements; Subpart E--Services to Participants; subpart F--Pilots, 
Demonstration and Evaluation Projects, subpart H--Administrative 
Requirements; and subpart I--Grievance Procedures and Appeals Process. 
The performance accountability requirements (subpart G) will be 
implemented through a separate Interim Final Rule (IFR).


Statement of Need:


The 2006 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (OAA-2006) were enacted 
on October 17, 2006. The amendments instituted a number of significant 
changes to the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) 
including time limits on the participation of eligible individuals, new 
enrollment priorities, streamlined and strengthened performance 
measures, more training options for participants, new limits on 
participant fringe benefits, and required open competition of national 
grants every four years.


The Department was required to implement the new performance measures 
by July 1, 2007 and published an Interim Final Rule on these 
requirements in the Federal Register on June 29, 2007 (72 FR 35832). 
However, SCSEP grantees were advised that they were responsible for 
complying with all the OAA-2006 changes as of July 1, 2007 as 
communicated in administrative guidance issued on June 11, 2007. Since 
OAA-2006 instituted so many significant changes in addition to those 
relating to performance accountability, it is important that 
regulations implementing the full requirements of the amendments be 
issued consistent with the identified timetable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq. to implement 
amendments to the Older Americans Act of 1965


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
SCSEP program changes when the

[[Page 69874]]

Department publishes the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after analysis and 
incorporation of public comments to the NPRM.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Gay Gilbert
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3428
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB47
RIN: 1205-AB48
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA



92. YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 109-281


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006, Public Law 109-281, enacted on 
September 22, 2006, transfers oversight and administration of the 
YouthBuild program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The YouthBuild 
program model targets are high school dropouts, adjudicated youth, 
youth aging out of foster care, and other at-risk youth population. The 
program model balances in-school learning, geared toward a high school 
diploma or GED, and construction skills training, geared toward a 
career placement for the youth. DOL intends to develop regulations in 
response to the legislation and to guide the program implementation and 
management.


Statement of Need:


In 2003, the White House Task Force report on Disadvantaged Youth 
recommended the transfer of YouthBuild because the program is ``at its 
core, an employment and training program for disadvantaged youth, and 
will benefit from administrative oversight in DOL within the Employment 
& Training Administration.'' On September 22, 2006, President Bush 
signed into law the YouthBuild Transfer Act (Pub. L. 109-281) which 
transfers the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) to the Department of Labor (DOL). The 
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) will administer the 
YouthBuild program beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007.


 The YouthBuild program assists youth who are often significantly 
behind in basic skills, in obtaining a high school diploma or GED 
credential, advance towards post-secondary education and career 
pathways in construction occupations. The primary target populations 
for YouthBuild are adjudicated youth, youth aging out of foster care, 
out-of-school youth, and other at-risk populations. Youth accomplish 
this through the building or rehabilitation of affordable homes in 
their communities.


The proposed regulation will consist of general information on funding 
and the grant application process, the program structure including 
eligibility and participation, performance requirements, and 
Administration allowances. The regulation also references compliance 
with existing standards of housing, environmental protections, and 
safety.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by the YouthBuild Transfer Act. 29 
U.S.C. 2918a (2006).


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
YouthBuild regulations when the Department publishes the proposed rule 
in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date, if necessary.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Gay Gilbert
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3428
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA



93. APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS, LABOR STANDARDS FOR REGISTRATION, 
AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


50 Stat 664, as amended (29 USC 50; 40 USC 3145; 5 USC 301)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 29 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Regulations that implement the National Apprenticeship Act at title 29 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

[[Page 69875]]

29 have not been updated since first promulgated in 1977. The 
Department of Labor (DOL) proposes to update 29 CFR part 29 to ensure 
that the National Registered Apprenticeship System has the necessary 
tools and flexibility to keep pace with changes in the economy, 
technological advances, and corresponding workforce challenges. The 
proposed rule addresses those changes by both making the procedures for 
apprenticeship program registration more flexible and strengthening 
oversight of program performance, including DOL's recognition of a 
State Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) as the appropriate agency for 
registering local apprenticeship programs for Federal purposes, and 
DOL's de-recognition of a SAA. The proposed rule also updates part 29 
to incorporate gender neutral terms and technological advances in the 
delivery of related technical instruction. Such revisions will enable 
DOL to promote apprenticeship opportunity in the 21st century while 
continuing to safeguard the welfare of apprentices.


Statement of Need:


Regulations for the Registered Apprenticeship System at Title 29 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 29 have not been updated since 
the Department of Labor promulgated them in 1977. The regulations must 
be updated to ensure that the regulatory framework for the Registered 
Apprenticeship System aligns with technological advancements, changes 
in the economy, and corresponding workforce challenges that have 
occurred in the past three decades. The proposed revisions will enable 
the Registered Apprenticeship System to continue its vital role in 
developing a skilled, competitive American workforce.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The regulation is authorized by Sec. 1, 50 Stat., as amended 929 U.S.C. 
50; 40 U.S.C. 276c; 5 U.S.C. 301), and Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 
1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (5 U.S.C. App. P. 534).


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
proposed revisions of the Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for 
Registration when the Department publishes the proposed rule in Federal 
Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of anticipated costs of this regulatory action 
have not been determined at this time and will be determined at a later 
date, if appropriate.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Anthony Swoope
Office of Apprenticeship
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2796
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB50
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA



94. FEDERAL-STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM; INTERSTATE 
ARRANGEMENT FOR COMBINING EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


26 USC 3304(a)(9)(B); Secretary's Order No. 3-2007, 72 FR 15907, April 
3, 2007


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 616 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 3304(a)(9)(B) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act requires 
States to participate in any arrangement specified by the Secretary of 
Labor for payment of unemployment compensation on the basis of 
combining an individual's employment and wages in two or more states. 
Current regulations implementing this arrangement allow individuals who 
have worked in more than one State to establish a combined-wage claim 
(CWC) in the State in which they are physically located, regardless of 
whether or not they have covered wages in that State. The Employment 
and Training Administration proposes amending current regulations to 
provide that individuals can establish CWC claims only in a State in 
which they have worked.


Statement of Need:


The current regulation for determining the State in which a CWC is 
established (the paying State) was issued in 1974 to replace a 
complicated set of tests for determining the paying State. It was 
intended to speed payments to eligible claimants by streamlining a 
manual process which relied on mailing paper forms between States. 
Before 1974, it could take weeks or months to determine which State 
should be the paying State for a particular claim. In 1974, UC claims 
were filed in person. Therefore, a simple solution was to make the 
paying State the State in which the claimant was physically present, 
which is where he or she would file the claim. All of the claimant's 
wages would be transferred to this State, whose law would govern 
eligibility and the amount of benefits.


An unintended consequence of this arrangement is that the paying State 
is not always a State in which the individual had insured wages. Since 
this definition was codified, a practice called ``forum shopping'' has 
developed. Forum shopping is where a claimant who has worked in more 
than one State travels to a State with a higher weekly benefit amount 
to file a CWC claim, even though the claimant has never worked in that 
State. This practice occurs because weekly benefit amounts vary greatly 
among States. States with higher weekly amounts have reported a number 
of instances where individuals traveled to these States for the purpose 
of filing a CWC and then immediately returned home. That cross-country 
travel is faster and more affordable has facilitated this practice.


The Department believes that forum shopping is undesirable for two 
reasons. First, it unfairly advantages claimants who worked in multiple 
States over those who worked in just one state. Second, it results in 
higher benefit charges to former employers than would otherwise occur.


Now that the technology exists to overcome the administrative 
difficulties that resulted in the current definition of paying State, 
the Department believes it is appropriate to more tightly conform the 
regulations to UC's character as wage insurance by making

[[Page 69876]]

the paying State any State where the individual earned insured wages. 
Most claims are now filed by telephone or via the Internet, and States 
can now instantly access each other's wage information and transfer 
wages electronically or CWCs. Information about the weekly benefit 
amounts and other eligibility requirements of various State laws is now 
easily accessible.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is authorized under section 3304(a)(9)(B) of the 
Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) (26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(9)(b)).


Alternatives:


The Interstate Benefits Committee of the National Association of State 
Workforce Agencies met to discuss options to address ``forum 
shopping''. No recommendations were made.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at 
this time and will be determined at a later date, if necessary.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Betty E. Castillo
Chief, Division of Unemployment Insurance Operations
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Rm S-4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3032
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB51
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




95. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM; PERFORMANCE 
ACCOUNTABILITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 3056 et seq


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 641


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, June 30, 2007, Interim Final Rule.


Abstract:


The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109-365, enacted 
on October 17, 2006, contains provisions amending title V of that Act, 
that authorizes the Senior Community Service Employment Program 
(SCSEP). The amendments, effective July 1, 2007, make substantial 
changes to the current SCSEP provisions in the Older Americans Act 
relating to performance accountability.


Section 513 of title V requires that the Agency establish and implement 
new measures of performance by July 1, 2007. Section 513(b) requires 
that the Secretary issue definitions of indicators of performance 
through regulation after consultation with stakeholders. Therefore, 
this Interim Final Rule is intended to implement changes to the SCSEP 
program performance accountability regulations found at 20 CFR 641 in 
subpart G. Changes to other subparts of part 641 will be implemented 
through a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


The 2006 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (OAA-2006) were enacted 
on October 17, 2006. The amendments instituted a number of significant 
changes to the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) 
including time limits on the participation of eligible individuals, new 
enrollment priorities, streamlined and strengthened performance 
measures, more training options for participants, new limits on 
participant fringe benefits, and required open competition of national 
grants every four years.


The Department was required to implement the new performance measures 
by July 1, 2007 and published an Interim Final Rule on these 
requirements in the Federal Register on June 29, 2007 (72 FR 35832). 
However, SCSEP grantees were advised that they were responsible for 
complying with all the OAA-2006 changes as of July 1, 2007, as 
communicated in administrative guidance issued on June 11, 2007. Since 
OAA-2006 instituted so many significant changes in addition to those 
relating to performance accountability, it is important that 
regulations implementing the full requirements of the amendments be 
issued consistent with the identified timetable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq. to implement 
amendments to the Older Americans Act of 1965.


Alternatives:


The public was afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the SCSEP 
program changes when the Department published the Interim Final Rule 
(IFR) in the Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after 
analysis and incorporation of public comments to the IFR.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              06/29/07                    72 FR 35832
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/28/07
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal

[[Page 69877]]

Agency Contact:
Gay Gilbert
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3428
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB48
RIN: 1205-AB47
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




96. FEE AND EXPENSE DISCLOSURES TO PARTICIPANTS IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT 
PLANS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1104; 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will ensure that the participants and beneficiaries in 
participant-directed individual account plans are provided the 
information they need, including information about fees and expenses, 
to make informed investment decisions. The rulemaking may include 
amendments to the regulation governing ERISA section 404(c) plans (29 
CFR 2550.404c-1). The rulemaking is needed to clarify and improve the 
information currently required to be furnished to participants and 
beneficiaries.


Statement of Need:


Given the potentially significant impact fees and expenses can have on 
retirement savings, understanding what and how fees and expenses are 
charged to 401(k) plans is essential to plan participants and 
beneficiaries in making informed investment decisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she considers necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act, including section 404 of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         04/25/07                    72 FR 20457
Comment Period End              07/24/07
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Katherine D. Lewis
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



97. AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERAL STATUTORY EXEMPTION 
FOR SERVICES

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1108(b)(2); 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will amend the regulation setting forth the standards 
applicable to the exemption under ERISA section 408(b)(2) for 
contracting or making reasonable arrangements with a party in interest 
for office space or services (29 CFR 2550.408b-2). This amendment will 
ensure that plan fiduciaries are provided or have access to that 
information necessary to a determination of whether an arrangement for 
services is ``reasonable'' within the meaning of the statutory 
exemption.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is needed to eliminate the current uncertainty as to 
what information relating to services and fees plan fiduciaries must 
obtain and service providers must furnish for purposes of determining 
whether a contract for services to be rendered to a plan is reasonable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act. Regulation 29 CFR 2550.408b-2 sets 
for the conditions necessary for relief, including the requirement that 
such contract or arrangement is reasonable.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 69878]]

Agency Contact:
Kristen Zarenko
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



98. PROHIBITED TRANSACTION EXEMPTION FOR PROVISION OF INVESTMENT ADVICE 
TO PARTICIPANTS IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1108(g); 29 USC 1135; PL 109-280, sec 601(a), Pension Protection 
Act of 2006; ERISA sec 408(g); ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 601 of the Pension Protection Act (PL 109-280) amended ERISA by 
adding new section 408(b)(14) and 408(g). Section 408(b)(14) is a 
prohibited transaction exemption that permits the provision of 
investment advice to participants or beneficiaries of certain 
individual account plans if the investment advice is provided under an 
``eligible investment advice arrangement,'' as defined in section 
408(g). In order to qualify as an ``eligible investment advice 
arrangement,'' the arrangement must either provide that any fees 
received by the adviser do not vary depending on the basis of any 
investment options selected, or use a computer model under an 
investment advice program that meets the criteria set forth in section 
408(g) in connection with the provision of investment advice. Further, 
with respect to both types of advice arrangements, the investment 
adviser must disclose to advice recipients all fees that the adviser or 
any affiliate is to receive in connection with the advice. Section 
408(g) requires that the computer model which serves as the basis for 
an eligible investment advice arrangement be certified by an ``eligible 
investment expert'' in accordance with rules prescribed by the 
Secretary of Labor. Section 408(g) also directs the Secretary of Labor 
to issue a model form for the required disclosure of fees. EBSA 
published a Request for Information that invited interested persons to 
submit written comments and suggestions concerning the expertise and 
procedures that may be needed to certify that a computer model meets 
the statutory criteria, and the content, types and designs of fee 
disclosure materials currently used and their usefulness to plan 
participants.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to fully implement the new exemption under 
section 408(b)(14) of ERISA pursuant to section 601 of the PPA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act. In addition, section 408(g)(3) of 
ERISA provides the Secretary with authority to establish rules 
governing the computer model certification process.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
RFI                             12/04/06                    71 FR 70429
RFI Comment Period End          01/30/07
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Fred Wong
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building Room N5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
Fax: 202 219-7291
RIN: 1210-AB13
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



99. PERIODIC PENSION BENEFIT STATEMENTS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1025; ERISA sec 105; PL 109-280 sec 508, Pension Protection Act 
of 2006; 29 USC 1135; ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2520


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 18, 2007.


Abstract:


Section 508 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) amended section 
105 of ERISA to require plans that are subject to ERISA to 
automatically provide participants and certain beneficiaries with 
individual pension benefit statements. Generally, defined benefit plans 
must provide the statement every three years, with an annual 
alternative. Individual account plans that permit participant direction 
must provide the statement quarterly and individual account plans that 
do not permit participant direction must provide the statement 
annually. The PPA directed the Department of Labor to provide a model 
statement within one year of enactment of the statute and the 
Department has been given interim final rulemaking authority.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to implement the new pension benefit 
statement requirements in section 105 of ERISA, with respect to which 
Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to issue model benefit 
statements.

[[Page 69879]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act. In addition, section 508(b)(2) of the 
PPA provides that the Secretary may promulgate any interim final rules 
as the Secretary determines appropriate to carry out the new pension 
benefit statement requirements.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Suzanne Adelman
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
Fax: 202 219-7291
RIN: 1210-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




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

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1171 to 1172; 29 USC 
1191c


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2590


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended title I of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Public 
Health Service Act with parallel provisions designed to improve health 
care access, portability and renewability. The Departments of Labor, 
the Treasury, and the Health and Human Services are mutually dependent 
due to shared interpretive jurisdiction and are proceeding concurrently 
to provide additional regulatory guidance regarding these provisions.


Statement of Need:


In general, the health care portability provisions in part 7 of ERISA 
provide for increased portability and availability of group health 
coverage through limitations on the imposition of any preexisting 
condition exclusion and special enrollment rights in group health plans 
after loss of other health coverage or a life event. Plan sponsors, 
administrators and participants need guidance from the Department with 
regard to how they can fulfill their respective obligations under these 
statutory provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Part 7 of ERISA specifies the portability and other requirements for 
group health plans and health insurance issuers. Section 734 of ERISA 
provides that the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be 
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of part 7 of 
ERISA. In addition, section 505 of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to 
issue regulations clarifying the provisions of title I of ERISA.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives were estimated and taken 
into account in developing the proposed rule and published in the 
Federal Register.


Risks:


Failure to provide guidance concerning part 7 of ERISA may impede 
compliance with the law.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/08/97                    62 FR 16894
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   06/07/97
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          07/07/97
Request for Information         10/25/99                    64 FR 57520
Comment Period End              01/25/00
NPRM                            12/30/04                    69 FR 78800
Request for Information         12/30/04                    69 FR 78825
Final Rule                      12/30/04                    69 FR 78720
Final Action Effective          02/28/05
Request for Information/ 
    Comment Period End          03/30/05
NPRM Comment Period End         03/30/05
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Amy Turner
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8335
RIN: 1210-AA54
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



101. SECTION 404 REGULATION--DEFAULT INVESTMENT ALTERNATIVES UNDER 
PARTICIPANT DIRECTED INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1104(c)(5); 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 19, 2007.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish a relief under which a fiduciary of a 
participant directed individual account

[[Page 69880]]

pension plan will be deemed to have satisfied his or her fiduciary 
responsibilities with respect to investment and asset allocation 
decisions made on behalf of individual participants and beneficiaries 
who fail to give investment direction. This rulemaking will describe 
the types of investments that qualify as default investments in order 
to obtain fiduciary relief. As with other investment alternatives 
available under the plan, fiduciaries will continue to be responsible 
for the prudent selection and monitoring of qualifying default 
investment alternatives.


Statement of Need:


Section 404(c)(1) of ERISA provides that, where a participant or 
beneficiary of an employee pension benefit plan exercises control over 
assets in an individual account maintained for him or her under the 
plan, the participant or beneficiary is not considered a fiduciary by 
reason of his or her exercise of control and other plan fiduciaries are 
relieved of liability under part 4 of title I of ERISA for the results 
of such exercise of control. As part of the Pension Protection Act of 
2006, section 404(c) was amended to provide relief accorded by section 
404(c)(1) to fiduciaries that invest participant assets in certain 
types of investment alternatives in the absence of participant 
investment direction. The Pension Protection Act directed the 
Department to issue final default investment regulations under section 
404(c)(5)(A) of ERISA no later than 6 months after the date of 
enactment of the Pension Protection Act. This rulemaking responds to a 
need on the part of plan sponsors and fiduciaries for guidance on the 
selection of default investments for plan participants who fail to make 
an investment election. Such guidance would also improve retirement 
savings for millions of American workers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by sections 505 and 
404(c) of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives were considered in developing the proposed rule 
and published in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives were estimated and taken 
into account in developing the proposed rule and published in the 
Federal Register.


Risks:


Failure to provide guidance on default investment options for 
individual account plans may result in diminished retirement savings 
for the many participants who fail to make an investment election with 
regard to their accounts. In addition, failure to issue final default 
investment regulations under section 404(c)(5)(A) of ERISA no later 
than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Pension Protection Act 
would contravene section 624 of the Pension Protection Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/27/06                    71 FR 56806
NPRM Comment Period End         11/13/06
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Lisa M. Alexander
Chief, Division of Coverage, Reporting and Disclosure
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
FP Building
Rm N5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8510
RIN: 1210-AB10
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




102. CONTINUOUS PERSONAL DUST MONITORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On June 24, 2003, MSHA announced that all work on its Plan Verification 
and Single-Sample Respirable Coal Mine Dust final rules would cease and 
the rulemaking record would remain open in order to obtain information 
concerning Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (CPDMs) currently being 
tested by NIOSH. A Federal Register notice was published on July 3, 
2003, extending the comment periods indefinitely. NIOSH issued a report 
on the CPDM in September 2006, and another report concerning test 
results in June 2007. MSHA will solicit public input on potential 
applications of this new monitoring technology in coal mines.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were over two decades ago. Despite this progress, there 
continues to be concern about our current sampling program and MSHA's 
ability to accurately measure and maintain respirable coal mine dust at 
or below the applicable standard. The new CPDM, unlike the technology 
that has been employed since 1970 to measure concentrations of 
respirable coal mine dust, offers the capability to provide accurate 
and timely continuous readings of the dust level during a shift. 
Responses to this Request for Information (RFI) will assist the Agency 
in determining: (1) how to deploy the CPDM in coal mines and utilize 
its coal dust monitoring capability to further improve miner health 
protection from disabling occupational lung disease; and (2) the 
regulatory and non-regulatory actions that would promote its use for 
exposure monitoring and control.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This RFI is authorized by sections 101 and 103 of the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


This RFI would explore options for amending and improving health 
protection from that afforded by the existing standards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary economic analysis to accompany any 
proposed rule that may be developed.


Risks:


Respirable coal dust is one of the most serious occupational hazards in 
the mining industry. Occupational exposure to excessive levels of 
respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung, which is potentially

[[Page 69881]]

disabling and can cause death. MSHA is pursuing both regulatory and 
nonregulatory actions to eliminate this disease through the control of 
coal mine respirable dust levels in mines and reduction of miners' 
exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1219-AB14, Related to 1219-AB18
RIN: 1219-AB48
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




103. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER: CONVERSION FACTOR FROM TOTAL CARBON TO 
ELEMENTAL CARBON

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 57


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On May, 18, 2006, MSHA promulgated its final rule on Diesel Particulate 
Matter (DPM) Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners (71 FR 
28924), phasing in the final diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure 
limit over a 2-year period, with the final limit of 160 TC micrograms 
of total Carbon per cubic meter of air to become effective on May 20, 
2008. The DPM exposure limit is expressed in terms of a ``TC'' or 
``total carbon'' limit. MSHA is initiating a new rulemaking to 
establish the most appropriate measure for determining compliance with 
the final DPM exposure limit. Using the latest available evidence, MSHA 
will be examining the most appropriate conversion factor for a 
comparable elemental carbon (EC) limit. An EC measurement ensures that 
a TC exposure limit is valid and not the result of environmental 
interferences.


Statement of Need:


The May 18, 2006 final rule at 30 CFR 57.5060(b)(3) requires mine 
operators to ensure that the miners' personal exposures to DPM in an 
underground mine do not exceed an airborne concentration of 160 
micrograms of total carbon per cubic meter of air during an average 8-
hour equivalent full shift, effective May 20, 2008. This rulemaking 
proposes the EC conversion factor for the 160 TC limit, which would 
allow mine operators to implement the requirements of the May 18, 2006 
final rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


MSHA will also analyze and evaluate options to convert the final PEL of 
160 ug/m3 of TC to a comparable final EC-based PEL.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA will prepare estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits 
associated with the selected conversion factor.


Risks:


A number of epidemiological studies have found that exposure to diesel 
exhaust presents potential health risks to miners. These potential 
adverse health effects range from headaches and nausea to respiratory 
disease and cancer. In the confined space of the underground mining 
environment, occupational exposure to diesel exhaust may present a 
greater hazard due to ventilation limitations and the presence of other 
airborne contaminants, such as toxic mine dusts or mine gases. MSHA 
believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for reducing 
miners' exposure to diesel particulate matter. Proceeding with a 
separate rulemaking to determine the correct TC to EC conversion factor 
for the phased-in final limits will more effectively reduce miners' 
exposures to DPM.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/07
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB55
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




104. ASBESTOS EXPOSURE LIMIT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 71

[[Page 69882]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos applies to surface 
(30 CFR part 56) and underground (30 CFR part 57) metal and nonmetal 
mines and to surface coal mines and surface areas of underground coal 
mines (30 CFR part 71). MSHA proposed a rule to lower the asbestos PELs 
to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter 
(f/cc) of air and the excursion limit to 1.0 f/cc of air as averaged 
over a 30 minute sampling period, which would reduce asbestos-induced 
occupational disease among miners. The proposed PELs are the same as 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA's) PELs.


Statement of Need:


Current scientific data indicate that MSHA's existing asbestos PEL is 
not sufficiently protective of miners' health. MSHA's asbestos 
regulations date to 1967 and are based on the Bureau of Mines (MSHA's 
predecessor) standard of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air 
(mppcf). Other Federal agencies have addressed this issue by lowering 
their asbestos PELs. These lower limits reflect new information and 
studies that compare asbestos-related disease risk to the number of 
asbestos-exposed workers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


The Agency increased sampling to determine miners' exposure levels to 
asbestos. In early 2000, MSHA began an extensive sampling effort at 
operations with potential asbestos exposure including taking samples at 
all existing vermiculite, taconite, talc, and other mines to determine 
the level of asbestos present. While sampling, MSHA staff also 
discussed various potential hazards of asbestos with miners and mine 
operators and the types of preventive measures that could be 
implemented to reduce exposures.


The final rule will be based on comments and testimony to the proposed 
rule as well as MSHA sampling and inspection experience.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs of the proposed rule to the mining industry would 
be approximately $136,000 annually. Of this total amount, the cost to 
the metal and nonmetal mining sector would be $91,500, and the cost to 
the coal mining sector would be $44,600.


MSHA estimates that between 1 and 19 deaths could be prevented over the 
next 65 years, which represents approximately 9 to 84 percent of all 
occupationally related deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Under the 
proposed exposure limit, approximately 1 out of every 1,000 miners will 
avoid the risk of death from asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, or 
other forms of cancer attributed to asbestos exposure.


Risks:


Miners could be exposed to the hazards of asbestos at mine operations 
where ore body contains asbestos. In addition, miners could be exposed 
to asbestos at facilities that install, remove or work with material 
containing asbestos. Overexposure to asbestos causes asbestosis, lung 
cancer, mesothelioma, and other forms of cancer.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/29/02                    67 FR 15134
Notice of Change to 
    Public Meetings             04/18/02                    67 FR 19140
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/27/02                    67 FR 15134
NPRM                            07/29/05                    70 FR 42950
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/05                    70 FR 43950
Public Hearing                  10/18/05                    70 FR 43950
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


The Office of the Inspector General issued a report entitled, 
``Evaluation of MSHA's Handling of Inspections at the W.R. Grace & 
Company Mine in Libby, Montana,'' in March 2001.


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB24
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA



105. SEALING OF ABANDONED AREAS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 75.335


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 15, 2007.


Abstract:


The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) published an emergency 
temporary standard (ETS) on May 22, 2007. Under section 101(b) of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) the ETS became 
effective immediately; however, MSHA must publish a final rule no later 
than nine months after publication of the ETS. In addition, section 10 
of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER 
Act) requires the Secretary of Labor to finalize mandatory standards 
relating to the sealing of abandoned areas in underground coal mines no 
later than December 15, 2007. Therefore, MSHA is issuing a final rule. 
This final rule will include new comprehensive standards for 
underground coal mines regarding seal design approval, strength and 
installation approval, construction, maintenance and repair, sampling 
and monitoring, training, and recordkeeping, all of which are necessary 
to protect miners from hazards of sealed areas. It also implements the 
requirements of section 10 of the MINER Act by increasing the level of 
overpressure for new seals.


Statement of Need:


MSHA issued the ETS in response to the grave danger that miners face 
when

[[Page 69883]]

underground seals separating abandoned areas from active workings fail. 
However, as the ETS is effective until superseded by a mandatory 
standard, which MSHA shall promulgate within 9 months after publication 
of the ETS, the ETS provides miners continued critical protection that 
strengthens the requirement for the design, construction, maintenance, 
and repair of seals, as well as requirements for sampling, monitoring, 
and controlling atmospheres behind seals and providing training to 
miners constructing or repairing seals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Mine Act and by section 10 of the MINER Act.


Alternatives:


This final rule would provide: (1) the safety protections afforded to 
miners by the existing ETS; and (2) additional protections through 
experience gained through the rule and comments received during 
rulemaking. MSHA has analyzed regulatory alternatives in its regulatory 
economic analysis (REA) in support of the ETS. MSHA prepared any 
analysis of the cost of two alternatives regarding seal application 
approval: (1) certification of a professional engineer along with 
supporting documentation; and (2) design based on actual explosion 
testing. MSHA also considered and included a discussion of alternatives 
in the preamble to the ETS without a cost analysis. MSHA requested 
comments on alternatives including seal design, sampling, construction, 
and seal strength.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits of the final rule focus on seals 
that would actively monitored to maintain an inert atmosphere and seals 
that would be strengthened to better withstand explosions, both of 
which would reduce injuries and fatalities. MSHA will prepare a 
regulatory economic analysis for the final rules.


Risks:


Underground coal mines are dynamic work environments in which the 
working conditions can change rapidly. Caved, mined-out areas may 
contain coal dust and accumulated gas. This gas can be ignited by rock 
falls, lightning and, in some instances, fires started by spontaneous 
combustion.


Seals are intended to isolate the environment within the sealed area 
from the active workings of the mine, and to prevent an explosion that 
may occur on the inby side of the seal from propagating to the outby 
side of the seal where miners work or travel. Seals must therefore be 
designed to withstand elevated pressures and also to prevent the sealed 
atmosphere from reaching the explosive range. Adequate seals are 
crucial to contain explosions and prevent potentially explosive or 
toxic gases from migrating into the active working areas of underground 
coal mines. Miners rely on seals to protect them from the potentially 
hazardous environments within the sealed area. Recent mine explosions 
have demonstrated that improvements in seals are needed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Emergency Temporary 
    Standard                    05/22/07                    72 FR 28796
Extension of Comment 
    Period                      06/25/07                    72 FR 34609
Emergency Temporary 
    Standard (ETS) 
    Comment Period 
    Extended to 9/17/07         08/14/07                    72 FR 45358
Public Hearing                  07/10/07                    72 FR 28796
Public Hearing                  07/12/07                    72 FR 28796
Public Hearing                  07/17/07                    72 FR 28796
Public Hearing                  07/19/07                    72 FR 28796
Comment Period Ends             08/17/07                    72 FR 34609
Comment Period Extended         09/17/07                    72 FR 45358
Final Action                    02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB52
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA



106. MINE RESCUE TEAMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 957; 30 USC 811; 30 USC 825


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 49


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 15, 2007.


Abstract:


On June 15, 2006, Public Law 109-236 or the Mine Improvement and New 
Emergency Response Act (MINER Act) of 2006 became effective. This 
rulemaking will implement section 4 of the MINER Act by amending 
existing standards and developing new standards to provide for 
certification, composition, and training requirements for mine rescue 
teams in underground coal mines. Mine rescue team members also must be 
at the mine within an hour from the mine rescue station, requirements 
for mine rescue teams are set forth in 30 CFR part 49.


Statement of Need:


Section 4 of the MINER Act requires the Secretary of Labor to finalize 
mandatory health and safety standards relating to mine rescue teams in 
underground coal mines no later than December 15, 2007. Existing 
standards require properly trained mine rescue teams to be available 
within 2 hours from the mine rescue station during mine emergencies. 
The MINER Act requires team members to have underground coal mining 
experience and requires teams to participate in mine rescue contests. 
The MINER Act also provides for multi-employer teams, State-sponsored 
teams, and contract teams to ensure the availability of qualified mine 
rescue teams.

[[Page 69884]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the MINER Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


As required by the MINER Act, MSHA must publish a regulation on mine 
rescue teams.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule would increase safety and improve effectiveness of 
mine rescue teams. MSHA estimates that the yearly cost of the proposed 
rule would be $3.0 million for the underground coal mine industry and 
$0.1 million for State-sponsored mine rescue teams.


Risks:


Mine explosions at the Sago Mine and Darby No. 1 Mine and a mine fire 
at the Alma Mine in 2006 resulted in the deaths of 19 underground coal 
miners. Explosions, fires, and the migration of potentially explosive 
methane-air mixtures from worked-out areas to the working areas of an 
underground coal mine endanger all miners who work in the mine, 
including potential rescuers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/06/07                    72 FR 51320
NPRM Comment Period End         11/09/07
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB53
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




107. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Crystalline silica is a significant component of the earth's crust, and 
many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to it, usually 
in the form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. 
Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from 
exposure of employees over long periods of time (10 years or more). 
Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline silica causes acute 
or accelerated forms of silicosis that are ultimately fatal. The 
current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general industry is 
based on a formula recommended by the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1971 (PEL=10mg/cubic 
meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for 
construction and maritime (derived from ACGIH's 1962 Threshold Limit 
Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is considered 
obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend a 50[micro]g/m3 exposure limit for 
respirable crystalline silica.


Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive 
standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure 
monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. The American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published a recommended 
standard for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building 
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a 
recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include 
provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, 
and medical surveillance.


Statement of Need:


Over 2 million workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust in 
general industry, construction and maritime industries. Industries that 
could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline silica 
include: foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting operations, 
paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, brick 
making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing 
fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, 
masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The 
seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is 
demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to 
occur; between 1990 and 1996, 200 to 300 deaths per year are known to 
have occurred where silicosis was identified on death certificates as 
an underlying or contributing cause of death. It is likely that many 
more cases have occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, 
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated 
crystalline silica as a known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline 
silica has also been associated with an increased risk of developing 
tuberculosis and other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, as well as 
renal and autoimmune respiratory diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA 
enforcement data indicate that some workers continue to be exposed to 
levels of crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure limits. 
Congress has included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal 
nuclear testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the 
Agency to modernize its exposure limits for construction and maritime

[[Page 69885]]

workers, and to address some specific issues that will need to be 
resolved to propose a comprehensive standard.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination 
that workers are exposed to a significant risk of silicosis and other 
serious disease and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce 
the risk. In addition, the proposed rule will recognize that the PELs 
for construction and maritime are outdated and need to be revised to 
reflect current sampling and analytical technologies.


Alternatives:


Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted to address this 
problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, including 
initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 1997, 
sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to Eliminate 
Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its Web site. 
The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the scope of the 
rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope of the proposed rulemaking and estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.


Risks:


A detailed risk analysis is under way.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Completed SBREFA Report         12/19/03
Complete Peer Review of 
    Health Effects and 
    Risk Assessment             01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




108. CRANES AND DERRICKS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1926


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


A number of industry stakeholders asked OSHA to update the cranes and 
derricks portion of subpart N (29 CFR 1926.550), specifically 
requesting that negotiated rulemaking be used.


In 2002 OSHA published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated 
rulemaking committee. A year later, in 2003, committee members were 
announced and the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
was established and held its first meeting. In July 2004, the committee 
reached consensus on all issues resulting in a final consensus 
document.


Statement of Need:


There have been considerable technological changes since the consensus 
standards upon which the 1971 OSHA standard is based were developed. In 
addition, industry consensus standards for derricks and crawler, truck 
and locomotive cranes were updated as recently as 2004.


The industry indicated that over the past 30 years, considerable 
changes in both work processes and crane technology have occurred. 
There are estimated to be 64 to 82 fatalities associated with cranes 
each year in construction, and a more up-to-date standard would help 
prevent them.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary 
of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards to 
assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women 
(29 USC 651).


Alternatives:


The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be to take no 
regulatory action and not update the standards in 29 CFR 1926.550 
pertaining to cranes and derricks.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.


Risks:


OSHA's risk analysis is under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent To 
    Establish Negotiated 
    Rulemaking                  07/16/02                    67 FR 46612
Comment Period End              09/16/02
Request for Comments on 
    Proposed Committee 
    Members                     02/27/03                     68 FR 9036
Request for Comment 
    Period End                  03/31/03                     68 FR 9036
Established Negotiated 
    Rulemaking Committee        06/12/03                    68 FR 35172
Rulemaking Negotiations 
    Completed                   07/30/04
SBREFA Report                   10/17/06
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined

[[Page 69886]]

Agency Contact:
Steven F. Witt
Director, Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N-3467, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC01
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA



109. HAZARD COMMUNICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910.1200; 29 CFR 1915.1200; 29 CFR 1917.28; 29 CFR 1918.90; 29 
CFR 1926.59; 29 CFR 1928.21


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires chemical 
manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals 
they produce or import, and prepare labels and material safety data 
sheets to convey the hazards and associated protective measures to 
users of the chemicals. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their 
workplaces are required to have a hazard communication program, 
including labels on containers, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and 
training for employees. Within the United States (US), there are other 
Federal agencies that also have requirements for classification and 
labeling of chemicals at different stages of the life cycle. 
Internationally, there are a number of countries that have developed 
similar laws that require information about chemicals to be prepared 
and transmitted to affected parties. These laws vary with regard to the 
scope of substances covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of 
requirements (e.g., specification of a format for MSDSs), and the use 
of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies between the various laws 
are substantial enough that different labels and safety data sheets 
must often be used for the same product when it is marketed in 
different nations.


The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international 
requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard 
information. Labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and 
hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well 
understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of 
information that important statements are not easily recognized. 
Development of multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets is a 
major compliance burden for chemical manufacturers, distributors, and 
transporters involved in international trade. Small businesses may have 
particular difficulty in coping with the complexities and costs 
involved.


As a result of this situation, and in recognition of the extensive 
international trade in chemicals, there has been a longstanding effort 
to harmonize these requirements and develop a system that can be used 
around the world. In 2003, the United Nations adopted the Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). 
Countries are now considering adoption of the GHS into their national 
regulatory systems. There is an international goal to have as many 
countries as possible implement the GHS by 2008. OSHA is considering 
modifying its HCS to make it consistent with the GHS. This would 
involve changing the criteria for classifying health and physical 
hazards, adopting standardized labeling requirements, and requiring a 
standardized order of information for safety data sheets.


Statement of Need:


Multiple sets of requirements for labels and safety data sheets present 
a compliance burden for U.S. manufacturers, distributors and transports 
involved in international trade. Adoption of the GHS would facilitate 
international trade in chemicals, reduce the burdens caused by having 
to comply with differing requirements for the same product, and allow 
companies that have not had the resources to deal with those burdens to 
be involved in international trade. This is particularly important for 
small producers who may be precluded currently from international trade 
because of the compliance resources required to address the extensive 
regulatory requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals. 
Thus every producer is likely to experience some benefits from domestic 
harmonization, in addition to the benefits that will accrue to 
producers involved in international trade.


Additionally, comprehensibility of hazard information will be enhanced 
as the GHS will: (1) Provide consistent information and definitions for 
hazardous chemicals; (2) address stakeholder concerns regarding the 
need for a standardized format for material safety data sheets; and (3) 
increase understanding by using standardized pictograms and harmonized 
hazard statements.


Several nations, as well as the European Union, are preparing proposals 
for adoption of the GHS. US manufacturers, employers, and employees 
will be at a disadvantage in the event that our system of hazard 
communication is not compliant with the GHS.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary 
of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards to 
assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women 
(29 U.S.C. 651).


Alternatives:


The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be to take no 
regulatory action.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.


Risks:


OSHA's risk analysis is under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/12/06                    71 FR 53617
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/13/06
Complete Peer Review of 
    Economic Analysis           11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 69887]]

Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AC20
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S

[[Page 69888]]




DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of ten operating 
administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has 
statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, 
DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, public 
transportation, motor vehicle, commercial space, and pipeline 
transportation areas. DOT regulates aviation consumer and economic 
issues and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary 
implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, public 
transportation, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle 
safety. It writes regulations carrying out such disparate statutes as 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time Act. Finally, 
DOT has responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide 
range of regulations that govern internal programs such as acquisition 
and grants, access for the disabled, environmental protection, energy 
conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, 
property asset management, seismic safety, and the use of aircraft and 
vehicles.
The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to all 
its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as follows: 
DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and 
necessary. They will be issued only after an appropriate opportunity 
for public comment, which must provide an equal chance for all affected 
interests to participate, and after appropriate consultation with other 
governmental entities. The Department will fully consider the comments 
received. It will assess the risks addressed by the rules and their 
costs and benefits, including the cumulative effects. The Department 
will consider appropriate alternatives, including nonregulatory 
approaches. It will also make every effort to ensure that legislation 
does not impose unreasonable mandates.
In establishing its regulatory priorities--in identifying rulemaking 
actions that deserve special attention--the Department has focused on a 
number of factors, including the following:
 The relative risk being addressed
 Requirements imposed by statute or other law
 Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most 
            Wanted List''
 The costs and benefits of regulations
 The advantages to non-regulatory alternatives
 Opportunities for deregulatory action
 The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on agency 
            resources
An important initiative of the Department has been to conduct high 
quality rulemakings in a timely manner and to reduce the number of old 
rulemakings. To implement this, the following actions have been 
required (1) regular meetings of senior DOT officials to ensure 
effective scheduling of rulemakings and timely decisions, (2) better 
tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) 
early briefings of interested officials, (5) better training of staff, 
and (6) necessary resource allocations. The Department has achieved 
significant success as a result of this initiative with the number of 
old rulemakings as well as the average time to complete rulemakings 
decreasing. This is also allowing the Department to use its resources 
more effectively and efficiently.
The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a 
comprehensive internal management and review process for new and 
existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other 
appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant 
DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. The 
Department's development of regulatory process and related training 
courses for its employees; creation of an electronic, Internet-
accessible docket that can also be used to submit comments 
electronically; a ``list serve'' that allows the public to sign up for 
e-mail notification when the Department issues a rulemaking document; 
creation of an electronic rulemaking tracking and coordination system; 
the use of direct final rulemaking; and the use of regulatory 
negotiation are a few examples of this.
In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety of 
activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and its 
customers that will produce good results for transportation programs 
and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a number of 
continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking advisory 
committees.
The Department is also actively engaged in the review of existing rules 
to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. These reviews 
are in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
the Department's regulatory policies and procedures, and Executive 
Order 12866. This includes determining if the rules would be more 
understandable if they are written using a plain language approach. 
Appendix D to our Regulatory Agenda highlights our efforts in this 
area.
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in 
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example, 
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant 
rulemakings to ensure that rules are either completed in a timely 
manner or that delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking 
system, a monthly report is generated. To make its efforts more 
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet-accessible. 
By doing this, the Department is providing valuable information 
concerning our rulemaking activity and is providing information 
necessary for the public to evaluate the Department's progress in 
meeting its commitment to completing rulemakings in a timely manner.
The Department will continue to place great emphasis on the need to 
complete high quality rulemakings by involving senior Departmental 
officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process for 
the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top 
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's 
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department 
complies with Executive Order 12866 and other legal and policy 
requirements affecting rulemaking, including new statutes and Executive 
orders. Although OST's principal role concerns the review of the 
Department's significant rulemakings, this office has the lead role in 
the substance of projects concerning aviation economic rules and those 
affecting the various elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory 
requirements and process for use by

[[Page 69889]]

personnel throughout the Department. OST also plays an instrumental 
role in the Department's efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk 
assessments; regulatory flexibility analyses; other related analyses; 
and data quality, including peer reviews.
 OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to 
Administration and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory 
process. Of special importance during this fiscal year will be the 
continued implementation of the Department's response to the 
Administration's initiative on good guidance practices and other 
matters. These were adopted in amendments to Executive Order (E.O.) 
12866(amended by E.O. 13422) and an OMB Bulletin (07-02). The General 
Counsel's Office works closely with representatives of other agencies, 
the Office of Management and Budget, the White House, and congressional 
staff to provide information on how various proposals would affect the 
ability of the Department to perform its safety, infrastructure, and 
other missions.
 During fiscal year 2008, OST will continue its efforts to complete 
work on a final rule that would establish accessibility requirements 
for vessels which involves complex issues unlike those affecting land 
transportation (2105-AB87). This final rule would make passenger 
vessels accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. 
OST will also continue its focus on completing a final rule to revise 
its Air Carrier Access Act regulations (2105-AC97). This rule would add 
provisions concerning foreign air carriers, use of oxygen by 
passengers, and accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing passengers, 
as well as updating the entire rule.
 OST also is helping to coordinate the activities of several operating 
administrations that advance the Department's congestion initiative. 
Specific rulemakings concerning congestion relief can be found under 
the headings of the operating administrations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and 
efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system 
in the world. It is guided by its Flight Plan goals--Increased Safety, 
Greater Capacity, International Leadership, and Organizational 
Excellence. It issues regulations to provide a safe and efficient 
global aviation system for civil aircraft, while being sensitive to not 
imposing undue regulatory burdens and costs on small businesses. 
Activities that may lead to rulemaking include:
 Promotion and expansion of safety information sharing efforts 
            such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety 
            programs that prioritize and address risks before they lead 
            to accidents. Specifically, FAA will continue implementing 
            Commercial Aviation Safety Team projects related to 
            controlled flight into terrain, loss of control of an 
            aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, 
            weather, pilot decision making, and cabin safety. Some of 
            these projects may result in rulemaking and guidance 
            materials.
 Continuing to work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. 
            aviation regulations with those of other countries, without 
            compromising rigorous safety standards. The differences 
            worldwide in certification standards, practice and 
            procedures, and operating rules must be identified and 
            minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the 
            international aviation system. The differences between the 
            FAA regulations and the requirements of other nations 
            impose a heavy burden on U.S. aircraft manufacturers and 
            operators. Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace 
            industry remain internationally competitive. The FAA 
            continues to publish regulations based on recommendations 
            of Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of 
            cooperative rulemaking between the U.S. and other 
            countries.
Top regulatory priorities for 2007-2008 include:
 Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
            equipment (2120-AI92);
 Part 121 Pilot Age Limit (2120-AJ01);
 Transport Airplane Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction (2120-
            AI23); and
 Aging Aircraft Program - Widespread Fatigue Damage (2120-
            AI05).
The FAA developed the Aging Airplane Program to address structural and 
non-structural system safety issues that may arise as airplanes age and 
in response to:
(1) Airplanes being operated beyond their original design service 
            goals;
(2) The 1988 Aloha Boeing 737 accident; and
(3) The Aging Airplane Safety Act of 1991.
 Other significant rulemakings included in the Aging Airplane Program 
are:
(1) Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Aging Systems/Fuel Tank Safety; 
            and
(2) Widespread Fatigue Damage Program.
The FAA also is taking actions to advance the Department's congestion 
initiative. The FAA is currently working on a congestion management 
rule for LaGuardia Airport (2120-AI70) to provide a long-term solution 
to increased congestion and delay in New York.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal 
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet 
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve 
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system 
and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
 with ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface 
            transportation programs;
 to implement legislation in the least burdensome and 
            restrictive way possible; and
 to pursue regulatory reform in areas where project development 
            can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements 
            can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be 
            reduced or simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of 
            our State and local partners can be increased.
On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Federal 
surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and 
transit for the five-year period from 2005-2009. The FHWA has analyzed 
SAFETEA-LU and identified a number of congressionally directed 
rulemakings. These rulemakings include:
(1) Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and 
            Historic Sites (2125-AF14);
(2) Design Build (2125-AF12);

[[Page 69890]]

(3) Express Lane Demonstration Project (2125-AF07);
(4) Projects of National and Regional Significance (2125-AF08);
(5) Temporary Traffic Control Devices (2125-AF10); and
(6) Environmental Review of Activities that Support the Deployment of 
            ITS Projects (2125-AF15).
These rulemakings are the FHWA's top regulatory priorities. 
Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA 
regulations to ensure that they are consistent with SAFETEA-LU and will 
update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently 
enacted legislation.
Finally, the FHWA continues to work to complete the rulemaking that 
proposes to amend the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 
to include a standard for minimum maintained levels of traffic sign 
retroreflectivity and methods to maintain traffic sign 
retroreflectivity at or above these levels. This rulemaking (2125-AE98) 
addresses comments received in response to the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB's) request for regulatory reform nominations from the 
public. The OMB is required to submit an annual report to Congress on 
the costs and benefits of Federal regulations. The 2002 report included 
recommendations for regulatory reform that OMB requested from the 
public. One recommendation was that the FHWA should establish standards 
for minimum levels of brightness of traffic signs. The FHWA has 
identified this rulemaking as responsive to that recommendation.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial 
trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a cornerstone of 
FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance this safety 
mission. Developing new and more effective safety regulations is key to 
increasing safety on our Nation's highways. FMCSA regulations establish 
standards for drivers, carriers, States, and others that create 
improved safety conditions and operating practices.
FMCSA continues to develop regulations both mandated by Congress and 
initiated by the Agency to increase safety. FMCSA has completed all 
rulemakings required under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999, except ``Medical Certification as Part of the Commercial Driver's 
License'' (RIN 2126-AA10), which is among its highest priorities and is 
included in the Agency's Regulatory Plan. FMCSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this rule in November 2006 and is 
currently developing a final rule. Additionally, FMCSA has made 
progress in addressing the significant number of rules required by its 
most recent reauthorization legislation, SAFETEA-LU. The Agency is 
committed to promulgating these additional rules while still making 
progress on a large and challenging rulemaking agenda. FMCSA has 
completed several SAFETEA-LU rules, including ``Commercial Driver's 
License Standards; School Bus Endorsement'' (RIN 2126-AA94), and an 
``omnibus'' rule (RIN 2126-AA96) that implements more than a dozen 
SAFETEA-LU provisions. FMCSA has also published notices of proposed 
rulemaking on the SAFETEA-LU-required rules: ``Brokers of Household 
Goods Transportation by Motor Vehicle'' (RIN 2126-AA84) and 
``Intermodal Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor 
Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment'' (RIN 2126-AA86).
FMCSA's Regulatory Plan includes six rules that are high priority for 
the Agency because they would have a positive impact on safety. 
Included in the Regulatory Plan are: ``Medical Certification as Part of 
the Commercial Driver's License'' (RIN 2126-AA10), ``New Entrant Safety 
Assurance Process'' (RIN 2126-AA59), ``Requirements for Intermodal 
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal 
Equipment'' (RIN 2126-AA86), ``Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-
of-Service Compliance'' (RIN 2126-AA89), ``National Registry of 
Certified Medical Examiners'' (RIN 2126-AA97), and ``Commercial 
Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' 
(RIN 2126-AB02).
Together these priority rules will help to substantially improve 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our nation's highways in a 
variety of ways. The Medical Certification as Part of the Commercial 
Driver's License rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA10) would serve as a 
significant first step in a comprehensive update of how FMCSA addresses 
the medical condition of drivers who operate CMVs. The New Entrant 
Safety Assurance Process rule (RIN 2126-AA59) would raise the standard 
of compliance for passing the new entrant safety audit. The National 
Registry rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA97) would provide for a database of 
medical examiners and will establish training, testing, and 
certification standards for the medical examiners who certify that 
interstate CMV drivers meet the FMCSA's physical qualifications 
standards. The Electronic On-Board Recorders notice of proposed 
rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA89), which was published in January 2007, would 
implement performance standards for the use of electronic on-board 
recording devices and ensure that these standards reflect state-of-the-
art information and management technologies. The Commercial Driver's 
License Testing and Learner's Permit rulemaking (RIN 2126-AB02) will 
revise commercial driver's license testing and require new minimum 
Federal standards for States to issue commercial learner's permits.
In order to manage the significant number of rules on its agenda, FMCSA 
has revised its rulemaking procedures to increase oversight and 
involvement by senior agency leaders and to add structure and 
accountability to the rulemaking process. FMCSA continues to monitor 
the process and make changes when additional issues are identified.
The Agency continues work on its Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 
(CSA 2010) initiative, which will improve the way FMCSA conducts 
compliance and enforcement operations over the coming years. CSA 2010's 
goal is to improve large truck and bus safety by assessing a wider 
range of safety performance data of a larger segment of the motor 
carrier industry through an array of progressive compliance 
interventions. FMCSA is targeting 2010 for deployment of this new 
operational model. The Agency anticipates that the results of CSA 2010 
and its associated rulemakings will contribute further to the Agency's 
overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and injuries. FMCSA's 
implementation of CSA 2010 commences with the rulemaking ``Carrier 
Safety Fitness Determinations'' (RIN 2126-AB11).
In addition, under the Manufacturing Regulatory Reform Agenda, FMCSA 
published a final rule this year on ``Parts and Accessories Necessary 
for Safe Operations; Surge Brake Requirements'' (RIN 2126-AA91). This 
rulemaking allows the use of automatic hydraulic inertia brake systems 
(surge brakes) on trailers operated in interstate commerce.

[[Page 69891]]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include reducing the 
number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle crashes and 
related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance 
information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child 
restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. NHTSA 
pursues policies that encourage the development of non-regulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the 
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives 
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
NHTSA continues to pursue the high priority vehicle safety area of 
occupant protection in rollover events. Title X, Subtitle C, Sec. 
10301, section 30128 (d) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) calls for a 
final rule to upgrade the roof crush standard, FMVSS No. 216, by July 
2008. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in December 2005 
for upgraded roof crush resistance.
In FY 2008, NHTSA will publish a final rule that would increase the 
stringency of stopping distance requirements for truck tractors 
equipped with air brake systems, FMVSS No. 121. Such improvements would 
reduce the stopping distance disparity with light vehicles, and would 
result in fewer deaths and injuries and reduce property damage due to 
fewer crashes between truck tractors and light vehicles. A notice of 
proposed rulemaking was published in December 2005 for heavy truck 
stopping distances.
Also in 2008, light truck corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
standards for Model Years 2012 and beyond will be published, in 
accordance with statutory requirements and Executive Order No. 13432.
 In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance of 
motor vehicles, the agency is engaged in a variety of programs to 
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the 
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role 
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high 
priority areas: safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these 
issue areas, the agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well publicized enforcement; supporting 
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of 
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and 
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and the adoption 
of alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care 
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat 
use; combat excessive speed and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle, 
bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the 
public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety, fashioning regulations 
that have favorable benefit-to-cost ratios and that, where feasible, 
incorporate flexible performance standards and require cooperative 
action by all affected parties. In order to foster an environment for 
collaborative rulemaking, FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (RSAC). The purpose of the RSAC is to develop consensus 
recommendations for regulatory action on issues referred to it by FRA. 
Where consensus is achieved, and FRA believes the consensus 
recommendations serve the public interest, the resulting rule is very 
likely to be better understood, more widely accepted, more cost-
beneficial, and more correctly applied. Where consensus cannot be 
achieved, however, FRA will fulfill its regulatory role without the 
benefit of the RSAC's recommendations. The RSAC meets regularly, and 
its working groups are actively addressing the following tasks: (1) the 
development of safety standards for handling railroad equipment to 
reduce the number of human factor caused accidents; (2) revisions to 
the locomotive safety standards; (3) the development of passenger train 
emergency systems; (4) establishing medical standards for railroad 
personnel in safety-critical functions.
 In FY 2008, FRA plans to publish a final rule that would provide 
Regulatory Relief for Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System 
Implementation (2130-AB84). This rulemaking would establish criteria 
for operating trains equipped with Electronically Controlled Pneumatic 
Brake System technology.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance 
to State and local governments for public transportation purposes. The 
regulatory activity of FTA focuses on establishing the terms and 
conditions of Federal financial assistance available under the Federal 
transit laws.
FTA's policy regarding regulations is to:
 Implement statutory authorities in ways that provide the 
            maximum net benefits to society;
 Keep paperwork requirements to a minimum;
 Allow for as much local flexibility and discretion as is 
            possible within the law;
 Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
 Protect the Federal interest in local investments; and
 Incorporate good management principles into the grant 
            management process.
As public transportation needs have changed over the years, so have the 
requirements for Federal financial assistance under the Federal transit 
laws and related statutes. As a result of the reauthorization 
legislation, the FTA's regulatory activity will include a number of 
substantive rulemakings. A few of those rulemakings are explicitly 
mandated by the statute. Others will become necessary simply to make 
amendments to current regulations to make them consistent with the 
statute. FTA's regulatory priorities for the coming year will be 
reflective of the directives and the programmatic priorities 
established by the statute.
 FTA participates in the Department's congestion initiative. Current 
rulemakings that will advance this initiative include New Starts/Small 
Starts (2132-AA81). FTA is also working with FHWA to complete the 
rulemaking for Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, 
and Historic Sites (2132-AA83). FTA is planning to issue a contractor 
performance rule (2132-AA96).
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
MARAD administers Federal laws and programs designed to promote and 
maintain a U.S. merchant marine capable of meeting the Nation's 
shipping needs for both national

[[Page 69892]]

security and domestic and foreign commerce.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's 
responsibility of ensuring the availability of adequate and efficient 
water transportation services for American shippers and consumers. To 
advance these objectives, MARAD issues regulations, which are 
principally administrative and interpretive in nature, when 
appropriate, in order to provide a net benefit to the U.S. maritime 
industry.
MARAD's regulatory priorities a re to update existing regulations and 
to reduce unnecessary burden on the public.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers 
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation 
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline 
Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal 
pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward the elimination of deaths and 
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by 
pipeline and other transportation modes. We will use data to focus our 
efforts on the prevention of high-risk incidents, particularly those of 
high consequence to people and the environment. PHMSA will use all 
available agency tools, in particular its enterprise approach, to 
assess data; develop a consensus approach to standard setting, and 
regulation if necessary; target enforcement efforts; and enhance 
outreach, public education, and training to promote safety outcomes. 
For maximum effectiveness, we will work closely with other DOT safety 
agencies and other federal, State and local agencies to bring together 
stakeholders who can contribute to safety solutions.
Over the coming year, PHMSA will focus its safety efforts on the 
resolution of highest priority risks, including those posed by the air 
transportation of hazardous materials and bulk transportation of high 
hazard materials. For example, to enhance aviation safety, PHMSA plans 
to propose enhanced packaging, hazard communication, and handling 
requirements for the transportation of batteries of all types, in order 
to reduce fire risk caused by short-circuiting or accidental activation 
of batteries contained in equipment (2137-AE27). To address the risks 
posed by the bulk transportation of high-risk hazardous materials, 
PHMSA is working with FRA to develop effective strategies for 
maintaining tank car integrity during rail incidents, with a particular 
focus on the containment of lethal compressed gases in high pressure 
tank cars, and is supporting efforts to develop effective industry 
practices for safe loading and unloading of bulk hazmat containers 
(2130-AB69). Additionally, to address the need for an overall national 
program to enhance rail security, we are working with FRA and TSA to 
address the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials 
transported in commerce by rail. Specifically, we would require rail 
carriers to compile annual data on certain shipments of explosive, 
toxic by inhalation, and radioactive materials, use the data to analyze 
safety and security risks along rail routes where those materials are 
transported, assess alternative routing options, and make routing 
decisions based on those assessments. We would also clarify rail 
carriers' responsibility to address in their security plans issues 
related to en route storage and delays in transit. In addition, we 
would adopt a new requirement for rail carriers to inspect placarded 
hazardous materials rail cars for signs of tampering or suspicious 
items, including improvised explosive devices (2137-AE02).
A major priority for the hazardous materials program will be to 
eliminate regulatory barriers to the introduction and use of new 
technologies, while ensuring the continued safety of the Nation's 
transportation system. A major challenge for PHMSA is to facilitate 
technological development while ensuring the safe transportation of 
hazardous materials that are essential to such development. To this 
end, PHMSA is leading an international effort to develop standards for 
the safe transport of fuel cell cartridges and systems--an essential 
step in the market introduction of these emerging alternative fuel 
technologies--and expects to propose to permit airline passengers to 
hand-carry small, consumer application fuel cell systems aboard 
passenger planes provided the fuel cell systems meet certain 
performance standards (2137-AE19).
PHMSA will continue to look for ways to reduce the regulatory burden on 
hazardous materials shippers and carriers, consistent with our overall 
safety goals. For example, PHMSA is conducting a comprehensive review 
of special permits to identify those with demonstrated safety records 
that should be adopted as regulations of general applicability. We will 
continue to review regulatory standards to ensure they are necessary, 
easy to understand, contemporary and enforceable. In particular, PHMSA 
is considering revisions to the list of hazardous materials that 
require development and implementation of a security plan to address 
security risks during transportation in commerce. PHMSA expects to 
propose to include only those materials that pose a significant 
security threat in transportation; narrowing the list will reduce 
regulatory burdens on both shippers and carriers while continuing 
security planning requirements for high-risk materials (2137-AE22).
Over the next year, PHMSA expects to complete its integrity management 
initiative by adding integrity management regulations applicable to gas 
distribution pipelines. Integrity management regulations require 
pipeline operators to establish risk-based programs that focus 
increased safety attention on portions of pipeline posing the highest 
risk. This increased attention includes additional physical inspection. 
Because each distribution pipeline is located in the populated areas it 
serves, the operator of the distribution pipeline would include the 
entire pipeline in its integrity management program. The intent is to 
reduce the overall risk associated with operation (2137-AE15).
In addition, PHMSA will continue work on addressing currently 
unregulated rural pipelines that operate at low stress levels. PHMSA 
plans to extend safety regulation to pipelines in environmentally 
sensitive areas and began collecting data on the remaining rural 
pipelines. PHMSA will also consider extending the regulations 
applicable to the remaining unregulated rural low stress pipelines 
(2137-AD98).
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) seeks to 
identify and facilitate solutions to the challenges and opportunities 
facing America's transportation system through:

[[Page 69893]]

 coordination, facilitation, and review of the Department's 
            research and development programs and activities;
 providing multi-modal expertise in transportation and 
            logistics research, analysis, strategic planning, systems 
            engineering and training;
 advancement, and research and development, of innovative 
            technologies, including intelligent transportation systems;
 comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis, 
            and reporting;
 education and training in transportation and transportation-
            related fields; and
 managing the activities of the John A. Volpe National 
            Transportation Systems Center.
Through its Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RITA collects, 
compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation's 
transportation system. RITA collects airline financial, traffic, and 
operating statistical data, including on-time flight performance data. 
This information gives the Government consistent and comprehensive 
economic and market data on airline operations and is used in 
supporting policy initiatives, negotiating international bilateral 
aviation agreements, awarding international route authorities, and 
meeting international treaty obligations.
Through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office 
(ITS/JPO), RITA develops new regulations as appropriate, in 
coordination with OST and other DOT operating administrations, to 
enable deployment of ITS research and technology results.
Through its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA provides 
a comprehensive range of engineering expertise, and qualitative and 
quantitative assessment services, focused on applying, maintaining and 
increasing the technical body of knowledge to support DOT operating 
administration regulatory activities.
Through its Transportation Safety Institute, RITA designs, develops, 
conducts and evaluates training and technical assistance programs in 
transportation safety and security to support DOT operating 
administration regulatory implementation and enforcement activities.
RITA's regulatory priorities are to: assist OST and all DOT operating 
administrations in updating existing regulations by applying research, 
technology and analytical results; to provide reliable information to 
transportation system decision makers; and to provide safety regulation 
implementation and enforcement training.


             QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS
                    ON THE 2007-8 DOT REGULATORY PLAN
 
  This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are
                           often substantial.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Quantifiable     Quantifiable
Agency/RIN  Number                                                                   Costs           Benefits
                                    Title                         Stage         Discounted 2006  Discounted 2006
                                                                                  $ (Millions)     $ (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           2105-AC97Nondiscrimination on the Basis of                FR 05/08            1,212            2,077
                     Disability in Air Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for OST                                           1,212            2,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AI05   Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread               FR 05/08              537            1,214
                     Fatigue Damage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AI23   Transport Airplane Fuel Tank                     FR 11/07            1,145            1,132
                     Flammability Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AI92   Automatic Dependent Surveillance-              NPRM 10/07            2,433            2,018
                     Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AJ01   Part 121 Pilot Age Limit                       NPRM 01/08     (no estimate     (no estimate
                                                                                          yet)             yet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total for FAA                                          4,115            4,364
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA10   Medical Certification Requirements as            FR 04/08               61               83
                     Part of the CDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA59   New Entrant Safety Assurance Process             FR 03/08              490            3,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA86   Requirements of Intermodal Equipment             FR 04/08          147-241           82-258
                     Operators and Motor Carriers and
                     Drivers Operating Intermodal
                     Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA89   Electronic On-Board Recorders                    FR 09/08          190-280              200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA97   National Registry of Certified                 NPRM 12/07              860             1014
                     Medical Examiners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB02   Commercial Driver's Licenses and               NPRM 12/07               26               96
                     Learner's Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for FMCSA                                    1,774-1,957      5,195-5,371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69894]]

 
        2127-AG51   Roof Crush Resistance                            FR 07/08               96           72-138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AJ37   Reduced Stopping Distance                        FR 01/08               52        847-1,031
                     Requirements for Truck Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK08   Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel             NPRM 11/07     (no estimate     (no estimate
                     Economy Standards, Model Years 2012     Final Rule 11/08             yet)             yet)
                     and Beyond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for NHTSA                                            148        919-1,169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2130-AB84   Regulatory Relief for Electronically             FR 08/08            1,520            3,262
                     Controlled Pneumatic Brake System
                     Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for FRA                                           1,520            3,262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2132-AA81   New Small/Starts                               NPRM 10/07     (no estimate     (no estimate
                                                                                          yet)             yet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for FTA                                             ---              ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2137-AE02   Hazardous Materials: Enhancing Rail              FR 12/07               17   (no estimate; 1
                     Transportation Safety and Security                                          accident = 126)
                     for Hazardous Materials Shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2137-AE15   Pipeline Safety: Distribution                  NPRM 12/07            1,484            2.691
                     Integrity Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for PHMSA                                          1,501            2,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 TOTAL FOR DOT                                  10,270 - 10,453  18,508 - 18,934
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Estimated values are shown after rounding to the nearest $1 million and represent discounted present values
  assuming a discount rate of 7 percent.
Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be
  the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of
  $3.0 million. That economic value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted
  above, we have made no effort to include the non-quantifiable benefits.
The PHMSA and DOT total estimates include the costs for RIN 2137-AE02, but not the benefits, since the agency
  has not calculated the estimated benefits at this time.
 

_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




110. [rplus]NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR TRAVEL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


14 USC 41702; 14 USC 41705; 14 USC 41712


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 382


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would add coverage under the Air Carrier Access Act to 
foreign air carriers and comprehensively update and revise 14 CFR Part 
382. It would also clarify or propose new provisions in such areas as 
movable aisle armrests, preboarding announcements, and accessibility of 
carrier web sites.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to ensure nondiscriminatory policies and acessible 
services by air carriers, including foreign air carriers. It is also 
needed to improve accomdations for passengers who use medical oxygen or 
have impaired hearing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Air Carrier Access Act.


Alternatives:


Concerning foreign carriers, the main alternative (inadequate) would 
have been to rely on foreign policies and rules. With respect to 
oxygen, the main alternative would be to simply require carriers to 
allow passengers to bring on their own portable oxygen containers or to 
also allow carriers to provide oxygen to passengers who need it. With 
respect to accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing passengers, the 
main alternative would be to not change the current rule, which has 
fewer such accommodations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Present value benefits in 2006 dollars, for the combined ACAA final 
rule (foreign carriers, oxygen, and deaf and hard of hearing) are 
estimated at $2077.0m. Present value costs are

[[Page 69895]]

estimated at $1212.4m, resulting in estimated net benefits of $864.6m.


Risks:


The risks of not taking regulatory action would be to allow barriers to 
air travel by people with disabilities to remain in place.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/04/04                    69 FR 64364
Comment Period Extended         01/28/05                     70 FR 4058
NPRM Comment Period End         02/02/05
Comment Period End              03/04/05
Final Rule                      01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Robert C Ashby
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4723
TDD Phone: 202 755-7687
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2105-AC97
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




111. [rplus]AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE--BROADCAST (ADS-B) 
EQUIPAGE MANDATE TO SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


49 USC 1155; 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 49 
USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 
USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46306; 49 
USC 46315; 49 USC 46316; 49 USC 46504; 49 USC 46506-46507; 49 USC 
47122; 49 USC 47508; 49 USC 47528-47531; 49 USC 106(g); Articles 12 and 
29 of 61 Stat.1180


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 91


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require Automatic Dependent Surveillance - 
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment on aircraft to operate in certain 
classes of airspace within the United States National Airspace System. 
The rulemaking is necessary to accommodate the expected increase in 
demand for air transportation, as described in the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System Integrated Plan. The intended effect of this rule 
is to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with a comprehensive 
surveillance system that accommodates the anticipated increase in 
operations and would provide a platform for additional flight 
applications and services.


Statement of Need:


Congress has tasked the FAA with creating the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate the projected increase 
in demand for air traffic services. The current FAA surveillance system 
will not be able to maintain the same level of service as operations 
continue to grow.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of 
airspace, and Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under 
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the 
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes, 
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and 
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA 
is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce 
by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce.


Alternatives:


The FAA considered the following alternatives before proceeding with 
this rulemaking:


1. Status quo. The FAA rejected the status quo alternative because the 
ground based radars tracking congested flyways and passing information 
among the control centers for the duration of the flights is becoming 
operationally obsolete. The current system is not efficient enough to 
accommodate the estimated increases in air traffic, which would result 
in mounting delays or limitations in service for many areas.


2. Multilateration. Multilateration is a separate type of secondary 
surveillance system that is not radar and has limited deployment in the 
U.S. At a minimum, multilateration requires upwards of four ground 
stations to deliver the same volume of coverage and integrity of 
information as ADS-B, due to the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's 
position. Multilateration meets the need for accurate surveillance but 
the total life cycle system costs is very high.


3. Exemption to small air carriers. This alternative would mean that 
small air carriers would rely on the status quo ground based radars 
tracking their flights and passing information among the control 
centers for the duration of the flights. This alternative would require 
compliance costs to continue for the commissioning of radar sites. Air 
traffic controller workload and training costs would increase having to 
employ two systems in tracking aircraft. Small entities may request ATC 
deviations prior to operating in the airspace affected by this 
proposal. It would also be contrary to our policy for one level of 
safety in part 121 operations to exclude certain operators simply 
because they are small entities. Thus, this alternative is not 
considered to be acceptable.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimated cost of this proposed rule ranges from a low of $1.31 
billion to a high of $7.51 billion dollars. The estimated quantified 
potential benefits of the proposed rule are $8.11 billion and primarily 
result from fuel, operating cost and time savings from more efficient 
flights. On a present value basis costs range from $1.0 billion to 
$3.95 billion, with benefits estimated at $2.02 billion (using a 7% 
discount rate).

[[Page 69896]]

Risks:


The demand for air travel is expected to double within the next 20 
years. Current FAA projections are that by 2025, operations will grow 
to more than half a million departures and arrivals per year at 
approximately 16 additional airports. The present air traffic control 
system will be unable to handle this level of growth. Not only will the 
current method of handling traffic flow not be able to adapt to the 
highest volume and density for future operations, but the nature of the 
new growth may be problematic, as future aviation activity will be much 
more diverse than it is today. A shift of 2 percent of today's 
commercial passengers to very light jets that seat 4-6 passengers would 
result in triple the number of flights necessary to carry the same 
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow with the advent 
of other non-conventional aircraft, such as the UAS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/05/07                    72 FR 56947
NPRM Comment Period End         01/03/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Project number ATO-06-552-R.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Vincent Capezzuto
Terminal Program Operations
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 385-8637
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AI92
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA



112. [rplus]PILOT AGE LIMIT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701-
44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709-44711; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 44716-
44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 49 USC 44903-44904; 49 USC 44912; 49 
USC 46105


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would raise the upper age limit for pilots serving in 
air carrier operations (14 CFR part 121) to age 65, as long as the 
other pilot at the controls is under age 60. In addition, and to 
conform to ICAO standards, the FAA would make a minor amendment to 
airmen certification rules to require that air carrier pilots over age 
60 hold an FAA first-class medical certificate.


Statement of Need:


In November 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
adopted Amendment 167 to increase the ``upper age limit'' for pilots 
operating in ``international commercial air transport operations'' to 
age 65, provided the other pilot is under age 60. The rulemaking would 
make the FAA's upper age limit for pilots consistent with ICAO's new 
standard.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is proposed under the authority described in subtitle 
VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General requirements.'' 
Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of 
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for other 
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary 
for safety in air commerce and national security.


Alternatives:


The FAA is currently reviewing alternatives to the rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The FAA is currently developing the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking.


Risks:


In accordance with our treaty obligations under Article 33 to the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation, we have changed the 
operations specifications for foreign air carriers (that do not fly N-
registered aircraft) in order to comply with the new International 
Civil Aviation Organization standards. This does have the effect of 
allowing some pilots older than age 60 who are employed by foreign air 
carriers to operate within the United States. This creates an 
inconsistency with U.S. certificated pilots. We expect that this 
inconsistency will be resolved by the ongoing rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Cost estimates are not yet available. They will be included when the 
draft regulatory evaluation is completed. Docket number for project is 
FAA-2006-26139.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Larry Youngblut
Flight Standards Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20951
Phone: 202 267-9360
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AJ01
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




113. [rplus]AGING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM (WIDESPREAD FATIGUE DAMAGE)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44701-44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709-44711; 49 USC 44713; 44 
USC 44716-44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46105; 49 USC 1372; Pub L 107-71 
sec 104; . . .

[[Page 69897]]

CFR Citation:


14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 129


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require design approval holders to establish 
limits of validity (LOVs) of the engineering data that support the 
maintenance programs for certain transport category airplanes, and it 
would require them to determine if maintenance actions are needed to 
prevent widespread fatigue damage before an airplane reaches its LOV. 
This rulemaking would require operators of any affected airplane to 
incorporate the LOV and any necessary service information into their 
maintenance programs. This rulemaking would also prohibit operation of 
an affected airplane beyond the operational limit, unless an operator 
has incorporated an extended LOV and any necessary service information 
into its maintenance program.


Statement of Need:


History has shown that widespread fatigue damage (WFD) is a significant 
safety risk for transport category airplanes. The Aloha B-737 accident 
in 1988 showed FAA and industry that WFD could be a problem that could 
lead to catastrophic failure of airplane structure. Numerous widespread 
fatigue damage incidents since then have confirmed that it is a threat 
common to all aging airplanes. Because widespread fatigue damage 
results from the interaction of many small cracks, existing inspection 
methods are inadequate to reliably detect and prevent it.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


The FAA acknowledges the proposed rule may have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. We conclude the current 
proposal is the preferred alternative because it provides for a common 
WFD system for all operators who fly in the same airspace under the 
same operating environment.


We considered the following alternatives:


1. Exclude small entities


2. Extend the compliance deadline for small entities


3. Establish lesser technical requirements for small entities


4. Expand the requirements to cover more airplanes


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The cost of this proposal is $358.1 million. The benefits of this 
proposal consist of $654 million in accident prevention benefits and 
$74 million in detection benefits, for total benefits of $728 million.


Risks:


Because widespread fatigue damage problems will occur as airplanes 
operate beyond their initial operational limit, operators are likely to 
detect such problems over the 20-year forecast period. The FAA has 
assumed that there is a probability of widespread fatigue damage 
problems occurring for each fuselage type of five percent in each year. 
Under this assumption, there is a 35 percent chance that there will be 
zero WFD problems detected for a particular fuselage type over a 20-
year period.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/18/06                    71 FR 19927
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/17/06                    71 FR 38540
NPRM Comment Period End         09/18/06
Final Rule                      07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Present value (7%) cost $537 million -- Present value (7%) benefits 
$1,214 million


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Walter Sippel
ANM-115
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98039-4056
Phone: 425 227-2774
Fax: 425 227-1232
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AI05
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA



114. [rplus]TRANSPORT AIRPLANE FUEL TANK FLAMMABILITY REDUCTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44701-44702; 49 USC 44704


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 25; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 129; 14 CFR 91


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will require that flammability reduction means be 
incorporated into existing airplanes, newly manufactured airplanes, and 
new designs. It establishes new design standards for future and pending 
applications for type certification as well as new operating rules for 
retrofitting existing airplanes.


Statement of Need:


There have been four accidents caused by fuel tank explosions since 
1989. Two occurred during flight and two others occurred on the ground. 
Terrorists caused one of the four. In the other three cases, no 
ignition source was identified as the cause of the explosion. In all 
four cases, however, investigators concluded that the center wing fuel 
tank in these airplanes contained flammable vapors when the fuel tanks 
exploded and the accidents occurred.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 44701, title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.

[[Page 69898]]

Alternatives:


1. Require flammability reduction means on new production and new 
designs without requiring retrofit. The risk analysis for this option 
predicted an unacceptable high number of future accidents due to the 
high number of airplanes within the current fleet that would remain in 
service for many years. 2. Require inerting of all fuel tanks on 
existing airplanes in the fleet and new type designs. 3. Exclude all 
cargo operators. 4. Address unsafe condition through airworthiness 
directive. 5. Impose changes on operators as opposed to requiring OEMs 
to develop design changes. Past experience on similar safety 
initiatives shows the OEMs do not consistently support these effors and 
places in undue burden on the operators.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The The FAA is conducting a regulatory evaluation using various 
combinations of the value of a human life, the timing of the next 
accidents, the passenger load on the next accident airplane, and the 
effectiveness of SFAR 88. We anticipate costs and benefits will vary 
based upon assumptions used in calculating these values. Using a value 
of $3 million per life, average airplane size, average time for the 
next accident, the costs could exceed $1 billion and quantitative 
benefits will be less than $1 billion.


Risks:


The FAA believes at least one and as many as five accidents will happen 
in the next 50 years.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/23/05                    70 FR 70922
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    03/21/06                    71 FR 14122
Comment Period End              05/08/06
Final Rule                      02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Present value (7%) cost $1,145 million -- Present value (7%) benefits 
$1,132 million


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mike Dostert
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Phone: 425 227-2132
Fax: 425 227-1320
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AI23
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




115. [rplus]NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


Sec. 4116 of PL 109-59 (2005)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish training, testing and certification 
standards for medical examiners responsible for certifying that 
interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers meet established physical 
qualifications standards; provide a database (or National Registry) of 
medical examiners that meet the prescribed standards for use by motor 
carriers, drivers, and Federal and State enforcement personnel in 
determining whether a medical examiner is qualified to conduct 
examinations of interstate truck and bus drivers; and require medical 
examiners to transmit electronically to FMCSA the name of the driver 
and a numerical identifier for each driver that is examined. The 
rulemaking would also establish the process by which medical examiners 
that fail to meet or maintain the minimum standards would be removed 
from the National Registry. This action is in response to section 4116 
of SAFETEA-LU.


Statement of Need:


In enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [PL 109-59, August 10, 
2005], Congress recognized the need to improve the quality of the 
medical certification of drivers. SAFETEA-LU addresses the requirement 
for medical examiners to receive training in physical examination 
standards and be listed on a national registry of certified medical 
examiners as one step toward improving the quality of the commercial 
motor vehicle (CMV) driver physical examination process and the medical 
fitness of CMV drivers to operate CMVs. The safety impact will result 
from removing drivers who are not medically qualified to drive from 
interstate driving, and also from requiring drivers to seek medical 
treatment for conditions (such as hypertension) that are likely to 
impact safety and driver health. FMCSA has determined that focusing on 
medical examiner performance is one strategy for improving safety and 
reducing fatalities on our highways.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The fundamental legal basis for the NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C. 
31149(d), which authorizes FMCSA to establish and maintain a current 
national registry of medical examiners. FMCSA is also directed to 
determine which medical examiners are qualified to perform examinations 
of CMV drivers and to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is authorized 
to remove from the registry any medical examiner who fails to meet or 
maintain qualifications established by FMCSA. In addition, in 
developing its regulations, FMCSA must consider both the effect of 
driver health on the safety of CMV operations and the effect of such 
operations on driver health, 49 U.S.C. 3113(a).


Alternatives:


FMCSA is considering how best to address the concerns expressed by 
Congress. In doing so, we are exploring several options. We will 
discuss the various alternatives in a planned notice of proposed 
rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimated 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $586,969,000, 
total benefits at $662,130,000, and net benefits over 10 years at 
$75,161,000.

[[Page 69899]]

Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA



116. [rplus]COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE TESTING AND COMMERCIAL 
LEARNER'S PERMIT STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 31102 and 31136; PL 105-178, 112 Stat 414 (1998); PL 99-570, 
title XII, 100 Stat 3207 (1086); Sec 4007(a)(1) of PL 102-240, 105 Stat 
1914, 2151; Sec 4122 of PL 109-59 (2005); Sec 703 of PL 109-347


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384; 49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 14, 2008.


The statutory deadline results from section 703 of the SAFE Port Act 
(enacted October 13, 2006). The Act requires the Agency to implement 
certain statutory provisions within 18 months of enactment.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish revisions to the commercial driver's 
license knowledge and skills testing standards as required by section 
4019 of TEA-21, implement fraud detection and prevention initiatives at 
the State driver licensing agencies as required by the SAFE Port Act of 
2006, and establish new minimum Federal standards for States to issue 
commercial learner's permits (CLPs), based in part on the requirements 
of section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU. In addition, to ensuring the applicant 
has the appropriate knowledge and skills to operate a commercial motor 
vehicle, this rule would establish the minimum information that must be 
on the CLP document and the electronic driver's record. The rule would 
also establish maximum issuance and renewal periods, establish a 
minimum age limit, address issues related to a driver's State of 
Domicile, and incorporate previous regulatory guidance into the Federal 
regulations. This rule would also address issues raised in the SAFE 
Port Act.


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would create a Federal requirement for a commercial 
learner's permit (CLP) as a pre-condition for a commercial driver's 
license (CDL) and make a variety of other changes to enhance the CDL 
program. This would help to ensure that drivers who operate CMVs are 
legally licensed to do so and that they do not operate CMVs without 
having passed the requisite tests.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Public Law 99-
570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170; 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); section 
4122 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 109-59, 119 
Stat. 1144, at 1734; 49 U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and section 
703 of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE 
Port Act) (Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944). It is also 
based in part on the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Public 
Law 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832; 49 U.S.C. 31136, and the safety 
provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Chapter 498, 49 
Stat. 543, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502).


Alternatives:


There are 17 issues described in this rulemaking document and several 
alternatives were considered for each.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimate 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $25,836,000, 
total benefits at $95,913,000, and net benefits over 10 years at 
$70,076,000.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Additional Information:


Docket ID: FMCSA-2007-27659


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
James Davis
Commercial Driver's License Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-6406
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




117. [rplus]MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE 
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 69900]]

Legal Authority:


sec 215, PL 106-159; 113 Stat. 1748, 1767 (1999); 49 USC 31305 note and 
31502


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 383, 384, and 391; 49 CFR 390


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require those commercial driver's license (CDL) 
drivers who are required to obtain a Federal medical certification for 
the current status of that certification be made part of the commercial 
driver's licensing and renewal process, as required by Section 215 of 
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. Incorporating the current 
medical certification status information into the State-administered 
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record 
would improve highway safety by requiring those drivers who are 
required by Federal regulations to obtain a medical certificate to 
provide ``proof'' of that medical certification in order to obtain or 
retain a CDL. It would enable electronic verification of the current 
medical certification status as part of existing employer and 
enforcement programs. It would eliminate the requirement for those CDL 
operators who are required by Federal regulations to obtain a medical 
certificate to carry their medical examiner's certificate in addition 
to their CDL since an electronic record would verify that there is a 
valid medical certificate. FMCSA is currently reviewing comments to the 
docket.


Statement of Need:


This rule is required by Public Law 106-159. Section 215 of the Act 
requires that medical certification information be made part of the 
CDL. When applying for (or renewing) a CDL, 49 CFR Part 383 requires 
drivers to self-certify whether they are subject to part 391 
(Qualifications of Drivers). If they operate in interstate commerce and 
are not excepted, then part 383 requires these drivers to self-certify 
whether they meet the physical qualification requirements of Part 391. 
Part 383 does not currently require drivers to provide any ``proof'' 
regarding their physical qualification to operate a CMV in order to 
obtain or retain a CDL. This rulemaking would require interstate CDL 
drivers who are not excepted to begin providing to their State driver-
licensing agency (SDLA) an original or copy (at the State's discretion) 
of each medical examiner's certificate they obtain. The SDLA would 
modify their implementation of CDLIS and record information on that 
driver's Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) 
individual driver record maintained by the State. The new required 
information would include both the self-certification regarding 
applicability of part 391, and for interstate drivers who are not 
excepted, the current medical certification status information. This 
combination of information about the applicability of part 391 and 
medical certification status would determine whether a CDL could be 
issued, transferred, upgraded, renewed, or retained.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 215 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) 
directed the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to ``initiate a 
rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate 
to be made a part of commercial driver's licenses.'' The physical 
qualifications requirements in 49 CFR part 391 are based on 49 U.S.C. 
31136 and 31502. The physical qualifications standards are at 49 CFR 
Sec.  391.11. Part 391 regulations are applicable only to drivers who 
operate CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132. Thus, FMCSA interprets 
section 215 of MCSIA applicable only to interstate CDL holders.


The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 directed the Secretary 
to establish licensing standards for drivers that operate CMVs, as 
defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301. Those operators of CMVs as defined in 49 
U.S.C. 31301, who are engaged solely in intrastate commerce, must 
obtain a CDL but are not required by current Federal regulations to 
obtain a medical certificate as proof of their physical qualifications 
to operate commercial vehicles. [49 CFR Sec.  383.71(a)(1)]. The 
Secretary delegated these authorities to FMCSA. [49 CFR Sec.  1.73].


Alternatives:


All alternatives require SDLAs to modify CDLIS. Under alternatives 1 
and 2, SDLAs receive paper documents (original or copy) and perform 
data input. Under alternative 3, SDLAs receive an electronic CDLIS 
transaction.


Employing motor carriers would be able to obtain medical certification 
status on CDLIS motor vehicle record (MVR) obtained from SDLA. For 
drivers subject to part 391 and not excepted, MVR would contain medical 
certification status, as well as license status. Enforcement personnel 
obtain current license status, whether driver operates in interstate 
commerce, and medical certification status via electronic checks.


Under all three alternatives, the CDLIS driver record serves as the 
official record to indicate whether a driver operating in interstate 
commerce is required to be medically certified, and, if so, whether the 
driver is currently medically certified.


1. CDL Renewal Cycle Same as Medical Certificate.


Driver provides a current medical examiner's certificate to SDLA, which 
issues a new CDL expiring same day as certificate. Medical certificates 
expire in two years, so CDLs would be issued more often, and drivers 
would pay more fees that States assess.


2. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Distributed.


As in alternative 1, CDL drivers provide medical a current examiner's 
certificate to SDLA. There would be no additional issuance of a new 
CDL. SDLAs develop capability to downgrade CDL if new certification not 
received by expiration. Employers and enforcement personal obtain 
needed verifications from CDLIS driver record.


3. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Centralized.


Certificates go to central location. Status information electronically 
transmitted to SDLA, which develop capability to electronically receive 
and record on CDLIS driver record. As in alternative 2, SDLA downgrades 
CDL if new certification is not received by time it expires. Employer 
and enforcement access like alternatives 1 and 2 above.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rule was prepared and was 
placed in the docket when the NPRM was published. Costs being reviewed 
based on comments to the NPRM. Currently, we estimate 10 year costs 
(discounted at 7 percent) at $61,134,000, total benefit at $82,585,000, 
and net benefit over 10 years at $21,450,000.


Risks:


In addition to assessing costs, the agency is assessing the safety 
benefits.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           07/15/94                    59 FR 36338

[[Page 69901]]

ANPRM Comment Period End        11/14/94
NPRM                            11/16/06                    71 FR 66273
NPRM Comment Period End         02/14/07
Final Rule                      04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


Docket ID: FMCSA-97-2210.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AA10
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA



118. [rplus]NEW ENTRANT SAFETY ASSURANCE PROCESS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 106-159, sec 210; 113 Stat 1748 (1999); PL 107-87, sec 350; 49 USC 
31144


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would change the New Entrant Safety Assurance Process 
by raising the standard of compliance for passing the new entrant 
safety audit. It also would make clarifying changes to some of the 
existing new entrant regulations. The rule also proposes a separate 
application procedure and safety oversight system for non-North 
America-domiciled motor carriers. The proposed rule would improve the 
Agency's ability to identify at-risk new entrant carriers and would 
ensure deficiencies in basic safety management controls are corrected 
before the new entrant is granted permanent registration. These changes 
would not impose additional operational requirements on any new entrant 
carrier. All new entrants would continue to receive educational 
information on how to comply with the safety regulations and be given 
an opportunity to correct any deficiencies found. FMCSA recognizes many 
new entrants are small businesses that are unaware of these 
requirements and continue to need our assistance.


Statement of Need:


Sec. 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) 
[Public Law 106-159, December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1764] directed the 
agency to establish a safety monitoring system and application process 
for owners and operators requesting authority to operate in interstate 
commerce. The objective is to ensure new owners and new operators are 
knowledgeable about applicable Federal motor carrier safety standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under sec. 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 
(MCSIA) [Public Law 106-159, December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1764], 
Congress directed the agency to require new owners and new operators 
granted operating authority to pass a safety review within 18 months of 
beginning operations. Additionally, the agency must establish minimum 
requirements for applicants for new authority to operate in Interstate 
commerce to ensure applicants are knowledgeable about applicable 
Federal motor carrier safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency considered requiring a proficiency examination to evaluate a 
new applicant's knowledge about applicable Federal motor carrier safety 
standards. Instead, FMCSA required applicants for new entrant authority 
to self-certify that they are knowledgeable of applicable Federal 
requirements and provided educational and technical assistance 
materials to familiarize them with applicable standards.


The agency provided two alternatives for increasing the number of new 
entrant motor carriers audited annually. First, the agency provides an 
alternative to how a safety auditor may conduct safety audits. The 
safety auditor may audit a single new entrant motor carrier at its 
place of business or conduct group audits of multiple new entrant motor 
carriers at one time at a location other than a motor carrier's place 
of business. The agency also solicited comment on whether to use 
private contractors to conduct the safety audits and is exploring the 
option in forthcoming rulemakings.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimate the costs to be $490 million (net present value discounted 
at 7% over 10 years) and the benefits to be $3,900 million (net present 
value discounted at 7% over 10 years). The full regulatory evaluation 
for the NPRM is in the docket.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule (IFR)        05/13/02                    67 FR 31978
IFR Comment Period End          07/12/02
IFR Effective                   01/01/03
NPRM                            12/21/06                    71 FR 76730
NPRM Comment Period End         02/20/07
Final Rule                      03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket ID: FMCSA-2001-11061


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Stephanie Haller
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-0178
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AA59

[[Page 69902]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA



119. [rplus]REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDERS AND MOTOR 
CARRIERS AND DRIVERS OPERATING INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 31136 and 31502; 49 USC 31151; sec 4118, PL 109-59 (2005)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 386, 392; 49 CFR 385, 390, 393, and 396


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 11, 2006.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require entities that offer intermodal container 
chassis for transportation in interstate commerce to: File a Motor 
Carrier Identification Report (Form MCS-150); display a USDOT 
identification number on each chassis offered for such transportation; 
establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program to 
ensure the safe operating condition of each chassis offered for 
transportation and maintain documentation of the program; and provide a 
means for effectively responding to driver and motor carrier complaints 
about the condition of intermodal container chassis. The rulemaking is 
considered significant because of substantial industry and 
congressional interest and because it involves other departmental 
modes.


Statement of Need:


Section 4118 of SAFETEA--LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by adding 
new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled ``Roadability.'' Section 
31151 states: ``The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice 
and opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a 
program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport 
intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.''


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Safety 
Act of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49 
U.S.C. 31151). The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers, 
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU 
requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations ``to 
ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal 
containers is safe and systematically maintained.'' It specifies, in 
considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the 
regulations. It also provides the authority for Departmental employees 
designated by the Secretary to inspect intermodal equipment and related 
maintenance and repair records, and to place out-of-service equipment 
that fails to comply with applicable Federal safety regulations until 
the necessary repairs have been made. The legislation also requires the 
Secretary to preempt State requirements for the periodic inspection of 
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect 
on January 1, 2005 on the effective date of the final rule. However, it 
allows the Secretary to waive preemption if a State makes application, 
provided the Secretary finds that the State requirement is as effective 
as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden interstate 
commerce.


Alternatives:


The legislative mandate precluded broad regulatory alternatives. 
However, the NPRM requested comments concerning the marking of 
intermodal equipment, and in particular, whether other unique 
identification numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT 
number.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimate the costs to be between $146.7 and $241.7 million (net 
present value discounted at 7% over 10 years), and the benefits to be 
between $82.3 to 257.6 million (net present value discounted at 7% over 
10 years). The full regulatory evaluation for the NPRM is in the 
docket.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/21/06                    71 FR 76796
NPRM Comment Period End         03/21/07
Comment Period Extended         04/13/07                    72 FR 18615
End Extended Comment 
    Period                      05/21/07
Final Rule                      04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Deborah M Freund
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5370
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AA38
RIN: 2126-AA86
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA



120. [rplus]ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS FOR HOURS-OF-SERVICE 
COMPLIANCE

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 U.S.C. 31502; 49 U.S.C. 31136(a); Pub. L 104-88; Pub. L 103.311; 49 
USC 31137(a)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 350; 49 CFR 385; 49 CFR 395; 49 CFR 396


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations to incorporate new performance standards for electronic on-
board recorders (EOBRs) to document compliance with the Federal hours-
of-service rules. This would help ensure that performance standards for 
EOBRs are appropriate and reflect state-of-the-art communication and 
information management technologies. The rulemaking would consider the 
potential benefits and costs of requiring motor carriers to install and 
use EOBRs and evaluate alternative approaches including: 1) Mandating 
such practice industry-wide, 2) limiting the

[[Page 69903]]

requirement to motor carriers with certain characteristics, and 3) 
allowing EOBR use to remain voluntary.


Statement of Need:


On July 16, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit vacated FMCSA's 2003 final rule concerning hours-
of-service of commercial motor vehicle drivers, for reasons unrelated 
to EOBRs. In dicta, however, the court stated that section 408 of the 
ICCTA ``required the Agency, at a minimum, to collect and analyze data 
on the costs and benefits of requiring EOBRs.''


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 31502 of title 49 of the United States Code provides that 
``[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for: (1) 
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety 
of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications 
and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of 
equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of 
operation.'' This rulemaking addresses ``safety of operation and 
equipment'' of motor carriers and ``standards of equipment'' of motor 
private carriers and, as such, is well within the authority of 49 
U.S.C. 31502. The rulemaking would allow motor carriers to use EOBRs to 
document drivers' compliance with the HOS requirements; require some 
noncompliant carriers to install, use, and maintain EOBRs for this 
purpose; and update existing performance standards for on-board 
recording devices.


Section 31136 of title 49 of the United States Code provides concurrent 
authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. 
It requires the Secretary to ``prescribe regulations on commercial 
motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety 
standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations 
shall ensure that: (1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, 
equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed 
on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability 
to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators 
of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the 
vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles 
does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the 
operators.''


Alternatives:


FMCSA considered several alternatives to the proposal discussed here. 
These addressed the applicability of the proposal to all or subsets of 
the population of regulated motor carriers, the threshold for the 
application of the remedial directive, and the technical requirements 
for the EOBR itself.


Concerning a requirement for using EOBRs, the agency considered 
applying the proposed requirement to all motor carriers, to long-haul 
motor carriers only, and to long-haul carriers with recurring hours-of-
service noncompliance. Concerning a requirement for the technical 
requirements for an EOBR, the agency considered three levels of 
complexity and sophistication. Taken in combination, only the lowest-
cost device applied to only the non-compliant long-haul motor carriers 
generated a positive annualized net benefit of safety over costs. 
Concerning the application of the remedial directive, the agency 
considered different noncompliance thresholds and different numbers of 
compliance reviews. The particular combination proposed provided a 
window wide enough for FMCSA or State enforcement officials to perform 
at least two compliance reviews, at current rates, on over 90 percent 
of carriers with indicia of poor driver safety. The time frame between 
the Agency's initial findings and its issuance of remedial directives 
would be short enough to preserve the directives' efficacy in remedying 
repeated noncompliance.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


For our most likely option at present, we estimate the costs to be 
between $19 and $28 million per year (discounted at 7%) and the 
benefits to be about $20 million per year (discounted at 7%). The 
regulatory full evaluation for the NPRM is in the docket.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/01/04                    69 FR 53386
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/30/04
NPRM                            01/18/07                     72 FR 2340
NPRM Comment Period End         04/18/07
Final Rule                      09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


Docket ID: FMCSA-2004-18940.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Deborah M Freund
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5370
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AA89
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




121. [rplus]ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.216


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 1, 2008.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would upgrade vehicle roof crush requirements. It is 
part of the agency's comprehensive response to mitigate the number of 
fatalities and injuries resulting from vehicle rollovers. Rollover 
crashes constitute about 3 percent of passenger vehicle crashes, but 
about one third of the fatalities. Light trucks are more prone

[[Page 69904]]

to rollover, and their percentage of the U.S. fleet continues to 
increase. This crash mode constitutes a disproportionate segment of the 
Nation's highway safety problem. This rulemaking is significant because 
of public interest in vehicle safety.


Statement of Need:


Rollovers are especially lethal crashes. While rollovers comprise just 
3% of all light passenger vehicle crashes, they account for almost one-
third of all occupant fatalities in light vehicles, and more than 60 
percent of occupant deaths in the SUV segment of the light vehicle 
population.


Agency data show that nearly 24,000 occupants are seriously injured and 
10,000 occupants are fatally injured in approximately 273,000 non-
convertible light vehicle rollover crashes that occur each year. In 
order to identify how many of these occupants might benefit from the 
proposed upgrade, the agency analyzed real-world injury data in order 
to determine the number of occupant injuries that could be attributed 
to roof intrusion. The agency examined front outboard occupants who 
were belted, not fully ejected from their vehicles, whose most severe 
injury was associated with roof contact, and whose seating position was 
located below a roof component that experienced vertical intrusion as a 
result of a rollover crash. NHTSA estimates that there are about 807 
seriously and approximately 596 fatally injured occupants per year that 
fit these criteria. The agency believes that some of these occupants 
would benefit from this upgrade.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, title 49 of the USC, states that Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency will consider alternatives related to performance criteria 
and test procedures.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In the NPRM, the agency estimated benefits of this proposal to range 
from 498 to 793 non-fatal injuries and 13 to 44 fatalities. The annual 
equivalent lives saved were estimated at 39 to 55. The estimated 
average cost in 2003 dollars, per vehicle, of meeting the proposed 
requirements would be $10.67 per affected vehicle. Added weight from 
design changes is estimated to increase lifetime fuel costs by $5.33 to 
$6.69 per vehicle. The cost per year for the vehicle fleet is estimated 
to be $88-$95 million. The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated 
to range from $2.1 to $3.4 million.


Risks:


Current motor vehicles provide numerous occupant protection systems, 
such as side curtain air bags, upper interior padding, and advanced 
safety belt systems, that mitigate occupant head-to-roof contact 
injuries. Nevertheless, an estimated 498-793 non-fatal injuries and 13-
44 fatalities will continue to occur annually, absent the proposed 
change in regulation. Potential adverse risks the agency is also 
evaluating include a causal increase in rollover propensity that could 
overwhelm the anticipated benefits from this upgrade.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments            10/22/01                    66 FR 53376
RFC Comment Period End          12/06/01
NPRM                            08/23/05                    70 FR 49223
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/05
Supplemental NPRM               01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


OMB cleared subject to NHTSA making changes to the reg eval


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Lori Summers
Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1740
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AH74
RIN: 2127-AG51
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA



122.  [rplus]LIGHT TRUCK CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY 
STANDARDS, MODEL YEARS 2012 AND BEYOND

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 32902; Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 533


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2008.


CAFE standards must be set at least 18 months prior to the start of a 
model year. However, this action is also subject to a direction by the 
President of the United States to complete rulemaking in 2008.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would address Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy Standards pursuant to the President's Executive Order No. 
13432.


Statement of Need:


Issuance of CAFE standards for light trucks is necessary to improve 
energy security, strengthen national security, and protect the 
environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 32902(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code requires the 
issuance of maximum feasible CAFE standards for light trucks for each 
model year.


Alternatives:


Joint rulemaking with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs and benefits of the new standards addressed in this action 
have not yet been assessed.


Risks:


Depending on how manufacturers address Federal fuel economy 
requirements, there is some potential effect on safety. The agency has 
minimized this risk by switching to attribute-based standards in the 
last light truck CAFE rulemaking. This switch discourages the 
downsizing of vehicles since as vehicles become

[[Page 69905]]

smaller, the applicable fuel economy target becomes more stringent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Energy Effects:


 Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by Executive Order 
13211.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Kenneth R Katz
Lead Engineer, Consumer Program Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4936
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AK08
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




123. [rplus]REDUCED STOPPING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRUCK TRACTORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 CFR 1.50; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 
USC 322


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would reduce stopping distance requirements for truck 
tractors equipped with air brake systems. Advances in heavy vehicle 
braking systems show that improved stopping performance is attainable 
for these vehicles. Such improvements would reduce the stopping 
distance disparity with light vehicles, and would result in fewer 
deaths and injuries and reduce property damage due to fewer crashes 
between truck tractors and light vehicles.


Statement of Need:


Large trucks have longer stopping distances than light vehicles, 
increasing the chance of crashes in panic stopping situations. Crash 
data show that combination unit trucks (e.g., tractor-trailers) are 
highly involved in large truck fatal crashes with light vehicles. 
Agency test results indicate that significantly reduced tractor 
stopping distances may be achieved by using current-technology brake 
systems. The agency believes that sufficient test data exists to move 
forward with a proposal.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to reduce stopping 
distances for this type of vehicle other than changes in the 
requirements in FMVSS No. 121.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Reducing the stopping distance requirements (service brakes and/or 
emergency brakes) for tractors in FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, by 
20 to 30 percent is expected to reduce unable-to-stop-in-time 
collisions between combination-unit trucks and light vehicles. Test 
data has indicated that stopping distance reductions of up to 30 
percent may be achievable for all tractors in FMVSS No. 121. Evaluation 
is underway to determine the reductions in deaths, injuries, and 
property damage that could result from reductions in tractor stopping 
distances.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
improved tractor braking systems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/15/05                    70 FR 74270
NPRM Comment Period End         04/14/06
Final Rule                      03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Woods
Safety Standards Engineer Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-2720
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AJ37
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




124. [rplus]REGULATORY RELIEF FOR ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC 
BRAKE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 20103; 49 USC 20107; 49 USC 20302; 49 USC 20306; 49 USC 20701-
20702; 49 USC 21301-21302


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 229; 49 CFR 232; 49 CFR 238


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish criteria for operating trains equipped 
with Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System technology. This 
rulemaking would also provide regulatory relief, when necessary, to 
promote the transition to Electronically Controlled Brake System 
technology within the rail industry. This

[[Page 69906]]

rulemaking relates to, but is separate from the waiver proceeding under 
Docket No. FRA-2006-26435.


Statement of Need:


The proposed regulations are designed to provide for and encourage the 
safe implementation and use of ECP brake system technologies. FRA has 
determined that permitting the railroad industry flexibility in the 
manufacture and operation of ECP brake systems is the most efficient 
and cost-effective method of ensuring the safe operation of ECP brake 
equipped freight trains and freight cars. The proposed sections 
requiring the amendment of the railroads' current operating and 
training rules and the relaxation of inspection requirements and 
frequencies provides the industry with the flexibility needed to take 
advantage of ECP brake system implementation. Moreover, the current FRA 
regulations do not adequately address the use of ECP brake system 
technology. In fact, application of current regulations to freight 
trains and freight cars equipped with ECP brake systems will create 
inadequate and unnecessarily burdensome requirements.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FRA is issuing this rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority (49 
U.S.C. 20103(a)) as delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 CFR 1.49).


Alternatives:


Currently, FRA accepts waiver applications from railroads that seek 
relief from FRA safety regulations in order to test new ECP brake 
system technologies. Since FRA must consider the safety ramifications 
of each application on a case-by-case basis, this procedure leaves 
considerable uncertainty regarding what type of safety case must be 
demonstrated to obtain approval. Prior to this action, FRA also 
considered: (1) leaving the existing regulatory requirement as is and 
(2) mandating the implementation and use of ECP brake systems. However, 
agency inaction would hinder introduction of new, safer railroad brake 
technology and mandating the implementation and use of ECP brake 
technology would be logistically and economically unfeasible and 
burdensome. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are designed to 
provide for and encourage the optional and safe implementation and use 
of ECP brake system technologies.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


If the industry was to take advantage of the proposed relief to the 
extent estimated by FRA for solely unit and unit-like trains, it would 
cost it approximately $1.5 billion (discounted at 7%). The total 
benefits of the proposed rule are approximately $3.2 billion 
(discounted at 7%). In addition, FRA anticipates substantial benefits 
that cannot be accurately quantified or forecasted at this time, 
including a potential $2.5 billion in savings from a 1 mph increase in 
network velocity. Overall, it appears that the benefits of the rule 
would significantly outweigh the costs.


Risks:


The advantages of ECP brake technology will significantly improve the 
safety and the performance of train operations, significantly reducing 
the risk of train accidents. Examples of such benefits include: better 
train handling through simultaneous brake applications; continuous 
brake pipe charging; graduated release brake operation; shorter train 
stopping distances; self-monitoring capabilities; electronic train 
management; and improved performance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/04/07                    72 FR 50820
NPRM Comment Period End         11/05/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Jason Schlosberg
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
1120 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6032
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2130-AB84
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




125. [rplus]MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS--NEW/SMALL STARTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


P.L. 109-59, sec.3011; PL 109-59, sec 3011


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 611


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 7, 2006


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish a simplified evaulation process for 
projects seeking less than $75 million in New Starts funds. The rule 
will set out FTA's evaluation and rating process for proposed projects 
based on the results of project justification and local financial 
commitment. This action is mandated by SAFETEA-LU.


Statement of Need:


Section 3011 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) made a 
number of changes to 49 U.S.C. 5309, which authorizes the Federal 
Transit Administration's (FTA's) fixed guideway capital investment 
grant program known as ``New Starts.'' SAFETEA-LU also added created a 
new category of major capital investments that have a total project 
cost of less than $250 million, and that are seeking less than $75 
million in section 5309 major capital investment funds. This rulemaking 
proposes to implement those changes and a number of other changes that 
FTA believes will improve the New Starts program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 5309, Title 49 of the United States Code requires the Secretary 
to promulgate regulations for evaluation and selection of major capital 
investment projects that have a total project cost of less than $250 
million, and that are seeking less than $75 million in Section 5309 
major capital investment funds.

[[Page 69907]]

Alternatives:


FTA sought public input through an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and several outreach sessions on the various options it 
might pursue as part of this rulemaking. The Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking contains a discussion of the various alternatives it 
considered in proposing a regulatory framework for implementing 49 
U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The single largest change in the New Starts program is the creation in 
SAFETEA-LU of the ``Small Starts'' program, to which FTA has added 
``Very Small Starts.'' Over the first ten years of the Small Starts 
program, the cumulative impact of transfer from New Starts to Small 
Starts will likely be $1.9 Billion, with a Net Present Value of $1.311 
Billion using a discount rate of 7 percent. This effect is difficult to 
characterize in terms of cost or benefit, as it simply represents a 
``transfer of a transfer`` from one governmental entity to another.


Risks:


The proposed rulemaking provides a framework for a discretionary grant 
program; it does not propose to regulate other than for applicants for 
Federal funds. As such, the rulemaking poses no risks for the regulated 
community, other than for the risks inherent in pursuing Federal funds 
that might not be awarded if a project fails to satisfy the eligibility 
and evaluation criteria in the proposed regulatory structure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           01/30/06                     71 FR 4864
ANPRM Comment Period End        03/10/06
NPRM                            08/03/07                    72 FR 43328
NPRM Comment Period End         11/01/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Christopher VanWyk
Attorney Advisor
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1733
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2132-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




126. [rplus]PIPELINE SAFETY: DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108-10, 60113, 60118, and 49 CFR 1.53.


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 192


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish integrity management program 
requirements appropriate for gas distribution pipeline operators. This 
rulemaking would require gas distribution pipeline operators to develop 
and implement programs to better assure the integrity of their pipeline 
systems.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to comply with a Congressional manade and to 
enhance safety by managing and reducing risks associated with gas 
distribution pipeline systems.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 
(Public Law No. 109-468), requires PHMSA to prescribe minimum standards 
for integrity management programs for gas distribution pipelines.


Alternatives:


PHMSA considered the following alternatives:


--No Action: No new requirements would be levied.


--Apply existing gas transmission pipeline IMP regulations to gas 
distribution pipelines.


--Model State legislation by imposing requirements on excavators and 
others outside the regulatory jurisdiction of pipeline safety 
authorities.


--Develop guidance documents for adoption by states with the intent of 
states mandating use of the guidance.


--Implement prescriptive Federal regulations, specifying in detail, 
actions that must be taken to assure distribution pipeline integrity.


--Implement risk-based, flexible, performance-oriented federal 
regulations, establishing high-level elements that must be included in 
integrity management programs--the alternative selected.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The monetized benefits resulting from the proposed rule are estimated 
to be $195 million per year. The costs of the proposed rule are 
estimated to be $155.1 million in the first year and $104.1 million in 
each subsequent year.


Risks:


These regulations will require operators to analyze their pipelines, 
including unique situations, identify the factors that affect risk--
both risk to the pipeline and the risks posed by the pipeline--and 
manage those factors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket Nos. PHMSA-04-18938 and PHMSA-04-19854.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 69908]]

Agency Contact:
Mike Israni
General Engineer
Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4571
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2137-AE15
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--PHMSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




127. [rplus]HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ENHANCING RAIL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 
AND SECURITY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHIPMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 5101 - 5127


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 172-174; 49 CFR 179


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), PHMSA 
would revise the current requirements on the safe and secure 
transportation of hazardous materials transported in commerce by rail. 
It may require rail carriers to (1) compile annual data on certain 
shipments of hazardous materials and use the data to analyze safety and 
security risks along rail transportation routes where those materials 
are transported; (2) assess alternative routing options and make 
routing decisions based on those assessments; and (3) clarify the 
current security plan requirements to address en route storage and 
delays in transit.


Statement of Need:


PHMSA is responsible for the safe and secure movement of hazardous 
materials by all transportation modes, including the nation's 
railroads. The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-
180) are designed to achieve three goals: (1) to ensure that hazardous 
materials are packaged and handled safely during transportation, thus 
minimizing the possibility of their release should an incident occur, 
(2) to ensure that the security risks associated with the 
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are addressed, and 
(3) to effectively communicate to carriers, transportation workers, and 
emergency responders the hazards of the material being transported. The 
HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each mode of 
transportation.


PHMSA's hazardous materials transportation regulatory program is 
designed to balance safety and security concerns with economic and 
societal goals. Rail shipments of hazardous materials are often 
transported in substantial quantities and are potentially vulnerable to 
sabotage or misuse. Such materials are already mobile and are routinely 
transported in proximity to large population centers. A primary safety 
and security concern involving the rail transportation of hazardous 
materials is the prevention of a catastrophic release in proximity to 
densely populated urban areas, events or venues with large numbers of 
people in attendance, iconic buildings, landmarks, or environmentally 
significant areas.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This final rule is published under authority of Federal hazardous 
materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et 
seq.) Section 5103(b) of Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, 
including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, 
and foreign commerce. In addition, the Homeland Security Council has 
tasked DOT and DHS to improve security of rail shipments of toxic 
inhalation hazard (TIH) materials.


Alternatives:


Alternative 1: Do nothing


This alternative continues the status quo. We would not issue a final 
rule to require carriers to make route selections for certain highly 
hazardous materials based on a comprehensive assessment of the safety 
and security vulnerabilities along available routes nor would we 
require rail carriers to inspect rail cars for IEDs or implement 
measures to minimize time in transit for highly hazardous materials. 
The current security plan requirements would continue in place.


Alternative 2: Impose enhanced safety and security requirements for a 
broad list of hazardous materials transported by rail


Under this alternative, we would impose enhanced safety and security 
requirements for rail shipments of a broad list of hazardous materials, 
including explosives; flammable solids, liquids, and gases; poison and 
poison inhalation hazard materials; oxidizers and organic peroxides; 
and corrosive materials.


Alternative 3: Impose enhanced safety and security requirements for 
specified rail shipments of highly hazardous materials


Under this alternative, we would impose enhanced safety and security 
requirements only for those classes and quantities of hazardous 
materials that pose unique and substantial safety and security risks. 
Covered materials would include: (1) more than 2,268 kg (5,000 lbs) in 
a single carload of Division 1.1., 1.2, and 1.3 explosives; (2) bulk 
quantities (119 gallons or more) of PIH materials; and (3) highway 
route-controlled quantities of radioactive materials. For these 
reasons, we have selected this alternative.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs


Rail carriers and shippers may incur costs associated with rerouting 
shipments or mitigating safety and security vulnerabilities identified 
as a result of their route analyses. Because the final rule builds on 
the current route evaluation and routing practices already in place for 
most, if not all, railroads that haul the types of hazardous materials 
covered, we do not expect rail carriers to incur significant costs 
associated with rerouting. Generally, costs associated with the 
provisions of this final rule include costs for collecting and 
retaining data and performing the mandated route safety and security 
analysis. We estimate total 20-year costs to gather the data and 
conduct the analyses proposed in this final rule to be about $17.4 
million (discounted at 7%).


Benefits


The major benefits expected to result from this final rule relate to 
enhanced safety and security of rail shipments of hazardous materials. 
The requirements of the final rule are intended to reduce the safety 
and security risks associated with the transportation of the specified 
hazardous materials. We estimated the costs of a major accident or 
terrorist incident by calculating the costs of the January 2005 
Graniteville, South Carolina, accident. This accident killed nine 
people and injured 554 more. In addition, the accident necessitated the

[[Page 69909]]

evacuation of more than 5,400 people. Total costs associated with the 
Graniteville accident are almost $126 million. If the measures proposed 
in this final rule prevent just one major accident or intentional 
release over a twenty-year period, the resulting benefits would more 
than justify the potential compliance costs. We believe that they 
could.


Risks:


It is possible to envision scenarios where hazardous materials in 
transportation could be used to inflict hundreds or even thousands of 
fatalities. Direct costs and those attributable to transportation 
system disruption that would surely result could easily total in the 
billions of dollars. We are operating under the premise that, in 
today's environment, it is necessary to take reasonable measures to 
reduce the likelihood that such events will be successful. The presence 
of such measures should, in fact, help deter potential attacks.


The measures in the rule have the potential of reducing the likelihood 
of success of such an attack. Moreover, the American public has an 
expectation that reasonable measures will be taken to help ensure the 
security of hazardous materials present in our society so they are not 
used for nefarious purposes. Companies are taking or have already taken 
steps to develop systematic security plans and security awareness 
training. These requirements will help ensure a consistent approach in 
the area while permitting flexibilities that are important in keeping 
costs at reasonable levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments            08/10/04                    69 FR 50987
Comment Period End              10/18/04
NPRM Comment Period End         10/29/06
NPRM                            12/21/06                    71 FR 76834
NPRM Comment Period End         02/20/07
Final Rule                      12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


HM Docket: HM-232E; RSPA-2004-18730


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Susan Gorsky
Senior Regulations Specialist
Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-8553
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2137-AE02
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-S

[[Page 69910]]




DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
 To promote prosperous and stable American and world economies, 
            including promoting domestic economic growth and 
            maintaining our Nation's leadership in global economic 
            issues, supervising national banks and thrift institutions, 
            and helping to bring residents of distressed communities 
            into the economic mainstream.
 To manage the Government's finances by protecting the revenue 
            and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the 
            Internal Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue 
            functions, financing the Federal Government and managing 
            its fiscal operations, and producing our Nation's coins and 
            currency.
 To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems from 
            those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or 
            to compromise U.S. national security interests, while 
            keeping them free and open to legitimate users.
Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department and 
its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the 
laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is the 
policy of the Department to comply with the requirement to issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments 
before adopting a final rule. Also, in particular cases, the Department 
invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while 
a proposed rule is being developed.
In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the President signed 
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 into law on October 26, 2001. Since then, 
the Department has accorded the highest priority to developing and 
issuing regulations to implement the provisions in this historic 
legislation that target money laundering and terrorist financing. These 
efforts, which will continue during the coming year, are reflected in 
the regulatory priorities of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
(FinCEN).
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to 
adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in 
Executive Order 12866, and to develop regulations that maximize 
aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and 
paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those 
regulations.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office
On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA). The new law, which was enacted as a 
consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, established a 
temporary Federal reinsurance program under which the Federal 
Government shares the risk of losses associated with certain types of 
terrorist acts with commercial property and casualty insurers. The Act, 
originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, was extended to 
December 31, 2007 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 
(TRIEA).
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is 
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing 
TRIA, as extended and amended by TRIEA. The Terrorism Risk Insurance 
Program Office, which is part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Financial Institutions, is responsible for operational 
implementation of TRIA. The purposes of this legislation are to address 
market disruptions, ensure the continued widespread availability and 
affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for 
terrorism risk, and to allow for a transition period for the private 
markets to stabilize and build capacity while preserving State 
insurance regulation and consumer protections.
Over the past year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary has continued 
the ongoing work of implementing TRIA. Congress, during 2007, has been 
deliberating the further extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance 
Program. Should the Program be extended, Treasury will issue guidance 
and regulations implementing any changes authorized by legislation in 
2008. Alternatively, should the Program not be extended, Treasury will 
issue guidance as appropriate to effect the cessation of operations.
Customs Revenue Functions
On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (the Act), establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
The Act transferred the United States Customs Service from the 
Department of the Treasury to the DHS, where it is was known as the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Effective March 31, 
2007, DHS changed the name of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pursuant to 
section 872(a)(2) of the Act (6 USC 452(a)(2)) in a Federal Register 
notice (72 FR 20131) published on April 23, 2007. Notwithstanding the 
transfer of the Customs Service to DHS, the Act provides that the 
Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over the customs 
revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the 
Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue 
functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department 
Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations 
pertaining to the customs revenue functions. This Order further 
provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority 
to approve any such regulations concerning import quotas or trade bans, 
user fees, marking, labeling, copyright and trademark enforcement, and 
the completion of entry or substance of entry summary including duty 
assessment and collection, classification, valuation, application of 
the U.S. Harmonized Schedules, eligibility or requirements for 
preferential trade programs and the establishment of recordkeeping 
requirements relating thereto.
During the past fiscal year, among the Treasury- approved CBP customs-
revenue function regulations issued were a final rule adopting the 
interim regulations that implemented the preferential trade benefit 
provisions of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act and a final rule adopting the interim rule regarding 
procedures on the refund of excess customs duties paid on entries of 
textile or apparel goods entitled to retroactive application of 
preferential tariff treatment under the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States Free Trade Agreement (also known as ``CAFTA-
DR''). CBP also published interim rules regarding the implementation of 
the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions 
of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 
the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act, and the 
United States-Morocco Free Trade Implementation Act. In addition, CBP 
amended the regulations on an interim basis to implement the duty-free

[[Page 69911]]

provisions of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership 
Encouragement Act of 2006 (the ``HOPE Act'') which concerned the 
extension of certain trade benefits to Haiti in the Tax Relief and 
Health Care Act of 2006.
During this past year, CBP also amended its regulations on an interim 
basis to establish special entry requirements applicable to shipments 
of softwood lumber products from Canada for purposes of monitoring the 
2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Governments of Canada and 
the United States. In addition, in conjunction with the final 
regulations adopted by the Department of Commerce, CBP finalized its 
proposed rule on the entry of certain cement products from Mexico 
requiring a U.S. Commerce Department import license based on the 
``Agreement on Trade in Cement'' between the governments of the United 
States and Mexico.
Another important regulation CBP finalized this year is one which 
clarifies the responsibilities of importers of food, drugs, devices, 
and cosmetics under the basic CBP importation bond which provided a 
reasonable time period (30 days) to allow the Food and Drug 
Administration to perform its enforcement functions with respect to the 
merchandise which is conditionally released under bond for 
admissibility determinations on these covered articles.
During fiscal year 2008, Treasury and CBP plan to finalize several 
interim regulations involving the customs revenue functions not 
delegated to DHS. Among these are the following interim regulations 
that implement the trade benefit provisions of the Trade Act of 2002:
 The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
 The African Growth and Opportunity Act
CBP also plans to finalize interim regulations this fiscal year to 
implement the preferential trade benefit provisions of the United 
States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United 
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, and the United States-Morocco Free 
Trade Agreement. CBP also expects to issue interim regulations 
implementing the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act and the United States-Central America- Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act.
CBP also plans to publish a final rule adopting an interim rule that 
was published on the Country of Origin of Textile and Apparel Products 
which implemented the changes brought about, in part, by the expiration 
of the Agreement on Textile and Clothing and the resulting elimination 
of quotas on the entry of textile and apparel products from World Trade 
Organizations (WTO) members.
In addition, Treasury and CBP plan to propose uniform rules governing 
the determination of the country of origin of imported merchandise. The 
uniform rules would extend the application of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement country of origin rules to all trade.
Treasury and CBP also plan to continue moving forward with amendments 
to improve its regulatory procedures begun under the authority granted 
by the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free 
Trade Implementation Act (Customs Mod Act). These efforts, in 
accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, have involved 
and will continue to involve significant input from the importing 
public. CBP will also continue to test new programs to see if they work 
before proceeding with proposed rulemaking to permanently establish the 
programs. Consistent with this practice, we expect to finalize a 
proposal to permanently establish the remote location filing program, 
which has been a test program under the Customs Mod Act. This rule 
would allow remote location filing of electronic entries of merchandise 
from a location other than where the merchandise will arrive.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Fund) was 
established by the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The primary purpose 
of the Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community 
development through the following programs: the Community Development 
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) 
Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the 
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program.
In fiscal year 2008, subject to funding availability, the Fund will 
provide financial assistance awards and technical assistance grants 
through the CDFI Program. Through the NACA Program, subject to funding 
availability, the Fund will provide technical assistance grants and 
financial assistance awards to promote the development of CDFIs that 
serve Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities.
Subject to funding availability for the BEA Program, the Fund will 
provide financial incentives to encourage insured depository 
institutions to engage in eligible development activities and to make 
equity investments in CDFIs.
Through the NMTC Program, the CDFI Fund will provide allocations of tax 
credits to qualified community development entities (CDEs). The CDEs in 
turn provide tax credits to private sector investors in exchange for 
their investment dollars; investment proceeds received by the CDEs are 
be used to make loans and equity investments in low-income communities. 
The Fund administers the NMTC Program in coordination with the Office 
of Tax Policy and the Internal Revenue Service.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), FinCEN's 
regulations constitute the core of the Department's anti-money 
laundering and counter terrorism financing programmatic efforts. 
FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, 
that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. 
national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant 
to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial 
supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the BSA 
to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file reports 
and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters, or in the conduct 
of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. Those regulations also require designated 
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 
These objectives and priorities include: (1) issuing, interpreting, and

[[Page 69912]]

enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and, as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a Government-wide access service to 
that same data, and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money 
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
During fiscal year 2007, FinCEN issued the following final rules: a 
final rule on enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts 
maintained for certain foreign banks; a final rule that exempts casinos 
from the requirement to file currency transaction reports on jackpots 
from slot machines and video lottery terminals and that also exempts, 
under certain conditions, reportable transactions in currency involving 
certain money plays and bills inserted into electronic gaming devices; 
and one final rule and a renewal of a rule without change imposing 
special measures against a foreign financial institution deemed to be 
of primary money laundering concern pursuant to section 311 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2008 include the 
following projects:
 Anti-Money Laundering Programs. Pursuant to section 352 of the 
            USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions are 
            required to establish anti-money laundering programs. 
            FinCEN expects to finalize the anti-money laundering 
            program rule for dealers in precious metals, precious 
            stones, or jewels. FinCEN will continue to research and 
            analyze issues regarding potential regulation of the loan 
            and finance industry (including pawnbrokers). Finally, 
            FinCEN also will continue to consider regulatory options 
            regarding certain corporate and trust service providers.
 Money Services Businesses. FinCEN will continue to implement 
            and refine its strategy with regard to money services 
            businesses, including: using analytical tools and 
            establishing partnerships with law enforcement to identify 
            unregistered money services businesses; continuing to 
            revise, simplify, clarify and, where possible, narrow the 
            regulatory framework for money services businesses; and 
            developing and delivering internal and external education, 
            outreach, and training on relevant regulatory topics 
            regarding the money services business industry for both the 
            money services business and banking industries, law 
            enforcement, and other regulatory agencies.
 SAR Confidentiality. FinCEN will coordinate with regulatory 
            authorities on an amendment with respect to existing 
            regulations pertaining to the confidentiality of Suspicious 
            Activity Reports.
Other Requirements. FinCEN will consider the need for regulatory action 
in conjunction with the feasibility study prepared pursuant to the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 concerning the 
issue of obtaining information about certain cross-border funds 
transfers and transmittals of funds. FinCEN also will continue to issue 
proposed and final rules pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects to propose various 
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its 
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance 
regulatory efficiency.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), promulgates regulations that 
interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code and related tax 
statutes. The purpose of these regulations is to carry out the tax 
policy determined by Congress in a fair, impartial and reasonable 
manner, taking into account the intent of Congress, the realities of 
relevant transactions, the need for the Government to administer the 
rules and monitor compliance, and the overall integrity of the Federal 
tax system. The goal is to make the regulations practical and as clear 
and simple as possible.
Most Internal Revenue Service regulations interpret tax statutes to 
resolve ambiguities or fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes 
interpreting particular words, applying rules to broad classes of 
circumstances, and resolving apparent and potential conflicts between 
various statutory provisions.
During fiscal year 2008 the Internal Revenue Service will accord 
priority to the following regulatory projects:
 Unified Rule for Loss on Subsidiary Stock. Prior to the 
opinion in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357 (2001), 
Treas. Reg. Sec.  1.1502-20 (the loss disallowance rule or LDR) 
addressed both noneconomic and duplicated loss on subsidiary stock by 
members of consolidated groups. In Rite Aid, the Federal Circuit 
rejected the validity of the duplicated loss component of the LDR. 
Following Rite Aid, the IRS and Treasury issued temporary regulations, 
Treas. Reg. Sec. Sec.  1.337(d)-2T (to address noneconomic loss on 
subsidiary stock) and 1.1502-35T (to address loss duplication within 
consolidated groups). The regulations were promulgated as an interim 
measure to address both concerns while a broader study of the issues 
was conducted. Both regulations were finalized, but the preamble to 
each regulation alerted taxpayers of the ongoing nature of the study 
and the intent to propose a new approach to both issues. In January 
2007, the IRS and Treasury proposed regulations that addressed 
noneconomic and duplicated stock loss, as well as certain related 
issues presented by the investment adjustment system. During fiscal 
year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
 LIBOR Swaps Used to Hedge a Tax-exempt Bond Issue. Issuers of 
tax-exempt bonds have historically hedged their variable-rate bonds 
with swaps that are based on a tax-exempt market index. Recently, 
hedges have evolved to where the floating rate is now frequently 
determined based on a taxable interest rate or taxable interest rate 
index, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Issuers 
assert that a taxable-index hedge is better than a hedge based on tax-
exempt rates because the taxable market is more liquid, producing more 
transparent pricing. Moreover, a taxable-index hedge produces 
substantial cost savings to issuers. The industry, however, is 
uncertain about how the arbitrage rules under section 148 apply to 
taxable-index hedges. This question is particularly troubling for an 
issuer that issues variable-rate, advance refunding bonds because the 
issuer needs to know the yield on its bond issue to know its permitted 
investment yield for the defeasance escrow. During fiscal year 2008, 
the IRS and Treasury intend to issue proposed regulations that will 
clarify how the arbitrage rules apply to taxable-index hedges and 
provide other corrections to the arbitrage regulations under section 
148.
 Stripped Interests in Bond and Preferred Stock Funds. Sections 
1286(f) and 305(e)(7) were added to the Internal

[[Page 69913]]

Revenue Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA) to 
address the treatment of stripped interests in bond and preferred stock 
funds. Section 1286(f) provides for the IRS and Treasury to prescribe 
regulations applying rules, similar to the rules of sections 1286 and 
305(e), to account for stripped interests in an account or entity 
substantially all of the assets of which consist of bonds, preferred 
stock, or a combination thereof. There are no specific statutory rules 
directly addressing stripping transactions with respect to common stock 
or other equity interests (other than preferred stock). In addition, 
section 305(e) does not address the proper treatment of dividend 
coupons separated from stripped preferred stock. Specific rules are 
needed to prevent the generation of artificial losses upon the 
disposition of stripped interests and to prevent the deferral of the 
recognition of taxable income associated with these types of stripped 
interests. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to 
issue proposed regulations under section 1286(f) providing rules to 
account for these stripped interests that are similar to those of 
sections 1286 and 305(e) and which will prevent the generation of 
artificial losses and require the current accrual of taxable income on 
the stripped interests.
 Deduction and Capitalization of Costs for Tangible Assets. 
Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a current deduction for 
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any 
trade or business. Under section 263(a) of the Code, no immediate 
deduction is allowed for amounts paid out for new buildings or for 
permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any 
property or estate. Those expenditures are capital expenditures that 
generally may be recovered only in future taxable years, as the 
property is used in the taxpayer's trade or business. It often is not 
clear whether an amount paid to acquire, produce, or improve property 
is a deductible expense or a capital expenditure. Although existing 
regulations provide that a deductible repair expense is an expenditure 
that does not materially add to the value of the property or 
appreciably prolong its life, the IRS and Treasury believe that 
additional clarification is needed to reduce uncertainty and 
controversy in this area. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
proposed regulations in this area and received numerous comments. 
During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to repropose 
regulations in this area in light of those comments.
 Intangible Property and Transfer Pricing Initiatives. On 
August 22, 2005, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations 
providing guidance on ``cost sharing arrangements,'' where related 
parties agree to share the costs and risks of intangible development in 
proportion to their reasonable expectations of their share of 
anticipated benefits from their separate exploitation of the developed 
intangibles. The proposed regulations are designed to prevent abuses 
possible under the existing rules, and to ensure that Congressional 
intent underlying section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code is fulfilled 
by requiring that cost sharing arrangements between controlled 
taxpayers produce results consistent with the arm's length standard. In 
August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued temporary regulations that 
provide guidance regarding the treatment of controlled services 
transactions under section 482 and the allocation of income from 
intangibles, in particular with respect to contributions by a 
controlled party to the value of an intangible owned by another 
controlled party. The regulations provide much-needed guidance on the 
transfer pricing methods to determine the arm's length price in a 
services transaction, including a new method that allows routine back-
office services to be charged at cost with no markup. As part of a 
continuing effort to modernize the transfer pricing rules to keep them 
current with changing business practices, the IRS and Treasury intend 
to finalize both the cost-sharing and services regulations during 
fiscal year 2008. Additionally, proposed regulations will be issued 
under section 367(d) of the Code, which provides that a transfer by a 
U.S. person of an intangible to a foreign corporation in certain 
nonrecognition transactions will be treated as a sale of that property 
for a series of payments contingent on the property's productivity, 
use, or disposition. The IRS and Treasury will coordinate the 
provisions to prevent intangible value going to offshore affiliates 
without arm's length consideration, whether intangibles are transferred 
directly, embedded in the performance of services, contributed via 
incorporation or reorganization, or conveyed in the course of a cost 
sharing arrangement. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue proposed 
regulations addressing the source and allocation of income and expense 
related to the operation of a global dealing operation.
 Foreign Tax Credit Guidance Initiatives. The IRS and Treasury 
intend to issue final regulations under section 901 of the Internal 
Revenue Code and guidance under other provisions of the Code during 
fiscal year 2008 to address the foreign tax credit and related issues. 
On August 3, 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations to 
address the operation of the foreign tax credit rules in the context of 
foreign consolidated regimes and with respect to so-called hybrid 
entities, entities that are treated as separate taxable entities under 
either U.S. or foreign law but as transparent entities under the other 
country's tax law. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend 
to issue final regulations in this area. On March 29, 2007, the IRS and 
Treasury issued proposed regulations that address the inappropriate 
creation or transfer of foreign tax liability in order to obtain 
foreign tax credits. The IRS and Treasury intend to issue final 
regulations in this area during fiscal year 2008 as well. The IRS and 
Treasury also expect to issue additional guidance that will provide 
rules relating to the reduction in the number of foreign tax credit 
categories and other provisions added by the AJCA. The guidance will 
provide for tax treatment that is consistent with the policies of the 
foreign tax credit provisions and applicable law.
 Subpart F Anti-deferral Regime Initiatives. The IRS and 
Treasury intend to issue guidance during fiscal year 2008 to address 
the use of contract manufacturing arrangements to produce property sold 
by controlled foreign corporations. The guidance will include rules 
that address the manufacturing exception to foreign base company sales 
income under section 954(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The rules 
will also provid e related guidance under the branch rule of section 
954(d)(2). On January 24, 2007, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 
2007-13, which announced that the IRS and Treasury will amend the 
foreign base company services rules to limit the definition of 
substantial assistance. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury 
intend to issue proposed regulations that will limit the definition of 
substantial assistance, and therefore limit the instances in which 
foreign base company services income may result.
Nuclear Power Tax Incentives. Section 468A of the Internal 
Revenue Code provides a current deduction for amounts contributed to a 
qualified nuclear decommissioning reserve fund relating to existing 
nuclear power plants. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) made 
several changes to

[[Page 69914]]

section 468A. Specifically, the Act eliminated certain limitations that 
prior law had placed on the amount that a taxpayer may deduct for the 
taxable year. Further, the Act allows a ``pour-over payment,'' or 
``special transfer'' into the qualified fund of amounts that prior law 
had prevented from being contributed to the qualified fund in prior 
taxable years, and new section 468A(f)(2) permits taxpayers to claim 
ratably over the remaining useful life of the nuclear plant a deduction 
for the amounts contributed to the qualified fund in the special 
transfer. A separate schedule of ruling amounts (a ``schedule of 
deduction amounts'') must be obtained from the Secretary before these 
deductions may be claimed. In addition, the Act requires taxpayers to 
obtain a new schedule of ruling amounts when the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) extends the operating license of the plant. Congress 
also provided a tax incentive for the construction of advanced nuclear 
power plants. In particular, the Act added section 45J to the Code, 
which permits a taxpayer producing electricity at a qualified advanced 
nuclear power facility to claim a credit for each kilowatt-hour of 
electricity produced for the eight-year period beginning when the 
facility is placed in service. A taxpayer may only claim the credit for 
production of electricity equal to the ratio of the allocated capacity 
that the taxpayer receives from the Secretary to the rated nameplate 
capacity of the taxpayer's facility. Section 45J(b)(3) provides that 
the Secretary shall allocate the national megawatt capacity limitation 
in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe. The IRS and Treasury, 
after consultation with the Department of Energy, published Notice 
2006-40 providing guidance with respect to procedures for applying for 
an allocation of the national megawatt capacity limitation and other 
issues arising under section 45J. As a result of these statutory 
changes, during fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to (1) 
issue temporary regulations providing guidance to taxpayers regarding 
the new substantive provisions under section 468A, including how to 
obtain the new schedules, as well as update the existing regulations 
under section 468A to reflect statutory changes; and (2) issue 
temporary regulations to incorporate the rules set forth in Notice 
2006-40, as well as to provide other necessary guidance under section 
45J.
 Understatement of Taxpayer's Liability by Tax Return Preparer. 
The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 amended the tax 
return preparer penalty under section 6694 of the Internal Revenue Code 
to include preparers of estate and gift tax returns, employment tax 
returns, excise tax returns and returns of exempt organizations. The 
standard of conduct under section 6694(a) for underpayments due to 
unreasonable positions taken on tax returns was also amended in two 
ways. First, for undisclosed positions, the realistic possibility 
standard was replaced with a requirement that there be a reasonable 
belief that the tax treatment of a position taken on a tax return would 
more likely than not be sustained on its merits. Second, for disclosed 
positions, the not frivolous standard was replaced with a requirement 
that there be a reasonable basis for the tax treatment of a position 
taken on a tax return. Finally, the penalty amounts under both section 
6694(a) and 6694(b), relating to understatements due to willful or 
reckless conduct, were increased. The amendments to section 6694 were 
effective for tax returns prepared after May 25, 2007. In June 2007, 
the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2007-54, which provided transitional 
relief relating to the standard of conduct under section 6694(a). 
During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to issue 
regulations providing guidance relating to the tax return preparer 
penalty, as amended. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue guidance 
regarding the administration of this penalty.
 Rules under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Significant 
new rules regarding the funding of qualified defined benefit pension 
plans were enacted as part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). 
The IRS and Treasury have prioritized the various pieces of guidance 
required to comply with those rules and will be issuing guidance in the 
form of proposed regulations during fiscal year 2008. Specifically, 
these proposed regulations will include rules related to the 
measurement of assets and liabilities and the determination of the 
minimum required contributions under new section 430 of the Internal 
Revenue Code. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue guidance on the 
provisions of the PPA related to automatic enrollment in salary 
deferral plans.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was created by 
Congress to charter national banks, to oversee a nationwide system of 
banking institutions, and to assure that national banks are safe and 
sound, competitive and profitable, and capable of serving in the best 
possible manner the banking needs of their customers.
The OCC seeks to assure a banking system in which national banks 
soundly manage their risks, maintain the ability to compete effectively 
with other providers of financial services, meet the needs of their 
communities for credit and financial services, comply with laws and 
regulations, and provide fair access to financial services and fair 
treatment of their customers.
The OCC's regulatory program furthers these goals. For example, 
pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1996 (EGRPRA), the OCC, together with the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union 
Administration (the agencies), has conducted a review of its 
regulations to identify opportunities to streamline our regulations and 
reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The agencies' review included: 
(1) issuing six notices, published in the Federal Register, that 
solicit comment from the industries we regulate and the public on ways 
to reduce regulatory burden with respect to specific categories of 
regulations; and (2) conducting outreach meetings with bankers and 
consumer groups in cities across the country for the same purpose. The 
agencies have fulfilled the statutory requirement to publish all 
categories of their regulations for public comment. We also have 
completed the summary of the comments and recommendations received, as 
the statute requires, together with a draft report to Congress on our 
conclusions. The final report is expected to be submitted to Congress 
before the end of fiscal year 2007.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2007 include:
 Management Official Interlocks (12 CFR Part 26).The Office of 
            the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of 
            the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
            Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (banking 
            agencies) issued a joint interim rule with request for 
            comment onJanuary 11, 2007 (72 FR 1274) and joint final 
            rule on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38753) to implement section 
            610 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 
            2006, Pub. L. 109-351, - 610, 120 Stat. ----, (Oct. 13, 
            2006). The rule modifies the relevant metropolitan 
            statistical area

[[Page 69915]]

            prohibition under the Depository Institution Management 
            Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) to allow a 
            management official of one depository organization to serve 
            as a management official of an unaffiliated depository 
            organization if the depository organizations (or a 
            depository institution affiliate thereof) have offices in 
            the same relevant metropolitan statistical area and one of 
            the depository organizations in question has total assets 
            of least $50 million.
 Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured 
            Depository Institutions and U.S. Branches and Agencies of 
            Foreign Banks (12 CFR Part 4). The banking agencies issued 
            an interim rule with request for comment on April 10, 2007 
            (72 FR 17798) and a joint final rule on September 25, 2007 
            (72 FR 54347) to implement the Financial Services 
            Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 and related legislation (the 
            Examination Amendments). The Examination Amendments permit 
            insured depository institutions that have up to $500 
            million in total assets, and that meet certain other 
            criteria, to qualify for an 18-month, rather than 12-month 
            on-site examination cycle.
 Special Lending Limits for Residential Real Estate Loans, 
            Small Business Loans, and Small Farm Loans (12 CFR Part 
            32). The OCC issued an interim rule with request for 
            comment on June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31441) to permanently 
            incorporate special lending limits for 1-4 family 
            residential real estate loans, small business loans, and 
            small farm loans or extensions of credit. The OCC will 
            issue a final rule based on comments received.
The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2008 principally 
include the issuance of a final rule based on our proposed package of 
regulatory burden reducing amendments, completion of rulemakings 
required by the FACT Act, and the implementation of new regulatory 
capital standards. The OCC plans to issue the following:
 Identity Theft Detection, Prevention, and Mitigation Program 
            for Financial Institutions and Creditors (12 CFR Parts 30 
            and 41). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
            Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal 
            Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 
            Supervision, National Credit Union Administration, and 
            Federal Trade Commission (the agencies) are planning to 
            issue a final rule to establish guidelines and regulations 
            to implement sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate 
            Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Section 114 
            requires the agencies to issue jointly guidelines for 
            financial institutions and creditors identifying patterns, 
            practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the 
            possible existence of identity theft. In addition, the 
            agencies must issue regulations requiring each financial 
            institution and creditor to establish reasonable policies 
            and procedures to implement the guidelines. The regulations 
            must contain a provision requiring a card issuer to notify 
            the cardholder if the card issuer receives a notice of 
            change of address for an existing account and a short time 
            later receives a request for an additional or replacement 
            card. Section 315 requires the agencies to jointly issue 
            regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable 
            policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports 
            should employ when the user receives a notice of address 
            discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency informing the 
            user of a substantial discrepancy between the address for 
            the consumer that the user provided to request the consumer 
            report and the address(es) in the file for the consumer. 
            The agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 
            18, 2006. 71 FR 40786.
 Fair Credit Reporting; Affiliate Marketing Regulations (12 CFR 
            Part 41). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
            Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal 
            Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 
            Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration (the 
            agencies) are planning to issue a final rule to implement 
            the affiliate sharing provisions of section 214 of the FACT 
            Act. The final rule would implement the consumer notice and 
            opt-out provisions of the FACT Act regarding the sharing of 
            consumer information among affiliates for making 
            solicitations to a consumer for marketing purposes. The 
            agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 15, 
            2004. 69 FR 42502.
 Fair Credit Reporting, Accuracy and Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (12 CFR Part 41). 
            The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of 
            Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit 
            Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
            National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Trade 
            Commission (the agencies) are planning to issue a joint 
            notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section 312 of 
            the FACT Act. Section 312 requires the agencies to issue 
            guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of 
            information entities furnish to a consumer reporting 
            agency. Section 312 also requires the agencies to consult 
            and coordinate with each other in order to issue consistent 
            and comparable regulations requiring entities that furnish 
            information to a consumer reporting agency to establish 
            reasonable policies and procedures for the implementation 
            of the guidelines. In addition, Section 312 requires the 
            agencies to jointly prescribe regulations that identify the 
            circumstances under which a furnisher of information to a 
            consumer reporting agency shall be required to 
            reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of 
            information contained in a consumer report on the consumer 
            based on the consumer's direct request to the furnisher. 
            The agencies issued an advance notice of proposed 
            rulemaking on March 22, 2006. 71 FR 14419.
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of New Basel 
            Capital Accord (Basel II) (12 CFR Part 3). The banking 
            agencies plan to issue a final rule based on the 
            International Convergence of Capital Measurement and 
            Capital Standards: A Revised Framework, the new capital 
            adequacy standards, commonly known as Basel II. The Federal 
            banking agencies published the notice of proposed 
            rulemaking (NPRM) on September 25, 2006 at 71 FR 55830 
            soliciting industry comments on a proposal for implementing 
            Basel II in the United States. In particular, the NPRM 
            described significant elements of the Advanced Internal 
            Ratings-Based approach for credit risk and the Advanced 
            Measurement Approaches for operational risk (together, the 
            advanced approaches). The NPRM specified criteria that a 
            banking organization must meet to use the advanced 
            approaches. Under the advanced approaches, a banking 
            organization would use internal estimates of certain risk 
            components as key inputs in the determination of their 
            regulatory capital requirements. The OCC has included this 
            rulemaking project in Part II of the Regulatory Plan.

[[Page 69916]]

 Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk (12 CFR Part 3). The 
            banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to amend the 
            current market risk capital requirements for national 
            banks. The banking agencies issued a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking on September 25, 2006 at 71 FR 55958. The rule 
            would make the current market risk capital requirements 
            generally more risk sensitive with respect to the capital 
            treatment of trading activities in banks and bank holding 
            companies. Specifically, the banking agencies propose to 
            require banks to hold additional capital for the risk of 
            default of trading positions beyond the 10-day horizon 
            required by the current market risk capital requirement.
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance: Basel II Standardized Approach. As 
            part of the OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine the 
            capital standards to enhance their risk sensitivity and 
            ensure the safety and soundness of the national banking 
            system, the OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking to amend various provisions of the capital 
            rules. The changes involve amending the current capital 
            rules for those banks that will not be subject to the 
            advanced internal ratings-based approaches.
 Interagency Proposal for Model Privacy Form under Gramm-Leach-
            Bliley Act (12 CFR Part 40). The banking agencies, along 
            with the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal 
            Trade Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
            and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the agencies) 
            issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 
            section 728 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act 
            of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-351) on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14940). 
            Specifically, the agencies proposed a safe harbor model 
            privacy form that financial institutions may use to provide 
            the disclosures under the privacy rules. The agencies are 
            now working on a final rule.
 Regulatory Burden Reduction and Technical Amendments.The OCC 
            plans to issue a final rule to further the goal of reducing 
            regulatory burden for national banks. The OCC issued a 
            notice of proposed rulemaking on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 
            36550). The proposed changes would relieve burden by 
            eliminating or streamlining existing requirements or 
            procedures, enhancing national banks' flexibility in 
            conducting authorized activities, eliminating uncertainty 
            by harmonizing a rule with other OCC regulations or with 
            the rules of another agency, or by making technical 
            revisions to update OCC rules to reflect changes in the law 
            or in other regulations. In a few cases, proposed revisions 
            also would be made to add or enhance requirements for 
            safety and soundness reasons.
Office of Thrift Supervision
As the primary Federal regulator of the thrift industry, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision (OTS) has established regulatory objectives and 
priorities to supervise thrift institutions effectively and 
efficiently. These objectives include maintaining and enhancing the 
safety and soundness of the thrift industry; a flexible, responsive 
regulatory structure that enables savings associations to provide 
credit and other financial services to their communities, particularly 
housing mortgage credit; and a risk-focused, timely approach to 
supervision.
OTS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the banking agencies) 
continue to work together on regulations where they share the 
responsibility to implement statutory requirements. For example, the 
banking agencies are working jointly on several rules to update capital 
standards to maintain and improve consistency in agency rules. These 
rules implement revisions to the International Convergence of Capital 
Management and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework (Basel II 
Framework) and include:
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Revised Basel 
            Capital Accord. On September 25, 2006, the Agencies 
            published a joint NPRM prescribing a new risk-based capital 
            adequacy framework that would require some, and permit 
            other, qualifying banks, savings associations, and bank 
            holding companies (banking organizations) to apply certain 
            approaches contained in the Basel II Framework. 
            Specifically, the NPRM would prescribe an internal ratings-
            based approach (IRB) to calculate regulatory credit risk 
            capital requirements, and to use advanced measurement 
            approaches to calculate regulatory operational risk capital 
            requirements. The NPRM specified the criteria that a 
            banking organization must meet to use these advanced 
            approaches. 71 FR 55830 (Sept 25, 2006). The banking 
            agencies issued related proposed guidance on credit risk 
            and operation risk (72 FR 9084; Feb. 2, 2007). The banking 
            agencies will issue final rules and guidance in fiscal year 
            (FY) 2008.
 Risk-Based Capital Standards; Market Risk. On September 25, 
            2006, the Agencies issued an NPRM on Market Risk. In this 
            rule, OTS proposed to require savings associations to 
            measure and hold capital to cover their exposure to market 
            risk. The other banking agencies proposed to revise their 
            existing market risk capital rules to implement changes to 
            the market risk treatment contained in Basel II Framework. 
            These changes would enhance risk sensitivity of the 
            existing market risk capital rules and introduce 
            requirements for public disclosure of certain information 
            about market risk (71 FR 55958; Sept. 25, 2006). The 
            banking agencies will issue final market risk rules in FY 
            2008.
 Risk-Based Capital Standards; Standardized Approach. The 
            banking agencies also plan to issue an NPRM implementing 
            the Standardized Approach to credit risk and approaches to 
            operational risk that are contained in the Basel II 
            Framework. Banking organizations would be able to elect to 
            adopt these proposed revisions or remain subject to the 
            agencies' existing risk-based capital rules, unless the 
            banking organization uses the Advanced Capital Adequacy 
            Framework described above. This NPRM will also be issued in 
            FY 2008 and would replace the NPRM on Domestic Capital 
            Modifications, which was published at 71 FR 77446 on Dec. 
            26, 2006.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2007 include:
 Subordinated Debt Securities and Mandatorily Redeemable 
            Preferred Stock. OTS issued a final rule updating existing 
            rules governing the inclusion of subordinated debt and 
            mandatorily redeemable stock in supplementary capital. The 
            final rule deleted unnecessary and outdated requirements 
            and conformed OTS rules more closely to the other banking 
            agencies (72 FR 27862; Feb. 28, 2007).
 Prohibited Service at Savings and Loan Holding Companies. This 
            interim final rule implemented new section 19(e) of the 
            Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which prohibits any person 
            who has been convicted of a

[[Page 69917]]

            criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or 
            money laundering (or has agreed to enter into a pretrial 
            diversion or similar program in connection with a 
            prosecution for such an offense) from holding certain 
            positions with respect to a savings and loan holding 
            company. The interim final rule incorporated the statutory 
            restrictions, prescribed procedures for applying for an OTS 
            order granting case-by-case exemptions from the 
            restrictions, and included two regulatory exemptions from 
            the restrictions (72 FR 29548; May 8, 2007). OTS will 
            finalize the interim rule in FY 2008.
 Community Reinvestment Act--Interagency Uniformity. OTS issued 
            a final rule revising its CRA regulations in four areas to 
            reestablish uniformity between its regulations and those of 
            the other federal banking agencies. The final rule was 
            published on March 22, 2007, at 72 FR 13429.
 Stock Benefit Plans in Mutual-to-Stock Conversions and Mutual 
            Holding Company Structures. OTS issued final regulations 
            regarding stock benefit plans established after mutual-to-
            stock conversions or in mutual holding company structures. 
            OTS also made several other minor changes to the 
            regulations governing mutual-to-stock conversions and 
            minority stock issuances (72 FR 35145; June 27, 2007).
OTS anticipates implementing sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) as follows:
 Fair Credit Reporting - Affiliate Marketing Regulations. The 
            banking agencies and the National Credit Union 
            Administration (NCUA) plan to issue a final rule 
            implementing section 214 of the FACT Act. The rule would 
            implement the consumer notice and opt-out provisions of the 
            FACT Act regarding the sharing of consumer information 
            among affiliates for marketing purposes. The agencies 
            published a proposed rule on July 15, 2004, at 69 FR 42502.
 Fair Credit Reporting - Accuracy & Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies. The banking 
            agencies, NCUA, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plan to 
            issue a joint proposed rule and joint final rule to 
            implement section 312 of the FACT Act. Section 312 requires 
            the agencies to consult and coordinate with each other in 
            order to issue consistent and comparable regulations 
            requiring persons that furnish information to a consumer 
            reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and 
            procedures for the implementation of the agencies' 
            guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of 
            information relating to consumers. In addition, the 
            agencies are to jointly prescribe regulations that identify 
            the circumstances under which a furnisher of information to 
            a consumer reporting agency shall be required to 
            reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of 
            information contained in a consumer report based on the 
            consumer's direct request to the furnisher. The agencies 
            published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 
            on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14419.
 Fair Credit Reporting- Identity Theft Red Flags and Address 
            Discrepancies. The banking agencies, NCUA, and FTC plan to 
            issue a final rule implementing section 114 and 315 of the 
            FACT Act. Section 114 requires the agencies to develop 
            guidelines for use in identifying patterns, practices, and 
            specific forms of activity that indicate the possible 
            existence of identity theft. It also requires the agencies 
            to issue regulations requiring each financial institution 
            and creditor to establish reasonable policies and 
            procedures to implement such guidelines. The regulations 
            must contain a provision requiring a card issuer to notify 
            the cardholder if the card issuer receives a notice of 
            change of address for an existing account, and a short time 
            later receives a request for an additional or replacement 
            card. Section 315 requires the agencies to jointly issue 
            regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable 
            policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports 
            should employ when such user receives a notice of address 
            discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency informing the 
            user of a substantial discrepancy between the address for 
            the consumer that the user provided to request the consumer 
            report and the address in the file for the consumer. The 
            agencies published a proposed rule on July 18, 2006, at 71 
            FR 40786.
OTS anticipates implementing section 728 of the Financial Services 
Regulatory Relief Act by amending its privacy rules under the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act to include a safe harbor model privacy form. The 
banking agencies, NCUA, FTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(FTC), and SEC published a proposed rule on March 29, 2007.
OTS will decide during fiscal year 2008 whether and, if so, to what 
extent, additional regulation is needed to implement the prohibition 
against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act. This would be in furtherance of the 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OTS published on August 8, 2007, 
at 72 FR 43570.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations 
to carry out the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce 
of, and collection of Federal taxes on, alcohol and tobacco products, 
and the collection of Federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. 
TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
 Regulate the alcohol and tobacco industries, including systems 
            for licenses and permits;
 Assure the collection of all alcohol, tobacco, and firearms 
            and ammunition taxes, and obtain a high level of voluntary 
            compliance with all laws governing those industries;
 Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
            prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry; and
 Assist the States and other F ederal agencies in their efforts 
            to eliminate interstate trafficking in, and the sale and 
            distribution of, cigarettes in avoidance of State taxes.
In 2008, TTB will continue to pursue its multi-year program of 
modernizing its regulations in title 27 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. This program involves updating and revising the 
regulations to be more clear, current, and concise, with an emphasis on 
the application of plain language principles. TTB laid the groundwork 
for this program in 2002 when it started to recodify its regulations in 
order to present them in a more logical sequence. In FY 2005, TTB 
evaluated all of the 36 CFR parts in title 27 and prioritized them as 
``high,'' ``medium,'' or ``low'' in terms of the need for complete 
revision or regulation modernization. TTB determined importance based 
on industry member numbers, revenue collected, and enforcement and 
compliance issues identified through field audits and permit 
qualifications, statutory changes, significant industry innovations, 
and other factors. The 10 CFR parts that TTB ranked as ``high'' include 
the five parts directing operation of the major taxpayers under the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Part 19 - Distilled Spirits

[[Page 69918]]

Plants; Part 24 - Wine; Part 25 - Beer; Part 40 - Manufacture of 
Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes; and Part 53 - 
Manufacturers Excise Taxes - Firearms and Ammunition. These five CFR 
parts represent nearly all the tax revenue that TTB collects, amounting 
to $14.8 billion in FY 2006. The remaining five parts rated ``high'' 
consist of regulations covering imports and exports (Part 27 - 
Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine and Beer; Part 28 - Exportation 
of Alcohol; and Part 41 - Exportation of Tobacco Products and Cigarette 
Papers and Tubes), the American Viticultural Area program (Part 9), and 
TTB procedure and administration (Part 70).
In early FY 2008, the bureau plans to put forward for Department of the 
Treasury publication notices of proposed rulemaking on parts 19 and 9 
and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on part 25. Additional 
regulations modernization work will begin later in the year on part 28. 
In addition to TTB's modernization updates, in FY 2008 the Bureau will 
pursue final regulatory action regarding allergens, serving facts for 
alcohol beverage labels and advertisements, and the classification 
distinctions between cigars and cigarettes for excise tax purposes.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) administers the following 
regulations:
 Governing transactions in Government securities by Government 
            securities brokers and dealers under the Government 
            Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended.
 Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules 
            governing the sale and issue of savings bonds, marketable 
            Treasury securities, and State and local Government 
            securities.
 Setting out the terms and conditions by which Treasury may 
            redeem (buy back) outstanding, unmatured marketable 
            Treasury securities through debt buyback operations.
 Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems.
 Governing the acceptability and valuation of all collateral 
            pledged to secure deposits of public monies and other 
            financial interests of the Federal Government.
Treasury's GSA rules govern financial responsibility, the protection of 
customer funds and securities, record keeping, reporting, audit, and 
large position reporting for all government securities brokers and 
dealers, including financial institutions.
Treasury maintains regulations governing two retail systems for 
purchasing and holding Treasury securities: Legacy Treasury Direct, in 
which investors can purchase, manage and hold marketable Treasury 
securities in book-entry form, and TreasuryDirect, in which investors 
may purchase, manage and hold savings bonds, marketable Treasury 
securities, and certificates of indebtedness in an Internet-based 
system.
The rules setting out the terms and conditions for the sale and issue 
of marketable book-entry Treasury bills, notes, and bonds are known as 
the Uniform Offering Circular. Treasury is considering lowering the 
minimum purchase amount for all Treasury marketable securities from 
$1,000 to $100. If this policy change is approved, during fiscal year 
2008, BPD plans to issue rules to lower the par amount and multiple of 
Treasury notes, bonds, and TIPS that may be stripped from $1,000 to 
$100. The lower purchase amount will enable smaller investors to 
participate in Treasury marketable securities auctions and encourage 
Americans to save more.
In fiscal year 2008, BPD plans to issue a rule to lower the annual 
purchase limitation for Series EE and Series I savings bonds. 
Currently, investors can purchase $30,000 each of definitive and book-
entry Series EE savings bonds and $30,000 each of definitive and book-
entry Series I savings bond per person, per calendar year. The new rule 
will permit an investor to purchase a principal amount of $5,000 each 
of definitive and book-entry Series EE savings bonds and $5,000 each of 
definitive and book-entry Series I savings bonds per person, per 
calendar year. As a result of the change in the annual purchase 
limitation, we are withdrawing the $10,000 Series I definitive savings 
bond denomination on original issue. The change will permit Treasury to 
continue to offer savings options for investors with limited means, 
while encouraging those with greater financial resources to participate 
in marketable securities auctions.
BPD intends to issue regulations, in fiscal year 2008, clarifying 
matters related to deceased bond owners. In addition, BPD will take the 
opportunity to make non-substantive technical corrections to the 
regulations.
Financial Management Service
The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to improve 
the quality of Government financial management and to administer its 
payments, collections, debt collection, and Government-wide accounting 
programs. For fiscal year 2008, FMS's regulatory plan includes the 
following priorities:
 Management of Federal Agency Disbursements: FMS is amending 31 
            CFR part 208 to increase the use of agency electronic 
            payments. In fiscal year 2008, a proposed rule will provide 
            that electronic payments are required for any individual 
            who becomes eligible to receive Federal payments, unless 
            the individual certifies that he or she does not have a 
            bank account. This amendment to 31 CFR part 208 is in 
            addition to a final rule, issued by FMS in the summer of 
            2007, facilitating the delivery of Federal payments to 
            victims of disasters and emergencies.
 Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu 
            of Bonds with Securities: FMS will amend 31 CFR part 225 to 
            incorporate changes required by the Financial Services 
            Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. The Act makes changes to 31 
            U.S.C. - 9301 and - 9303 to allow the Secretary of the 
            Treasury to determine the types of securities that may be 
            pledged in lieu of surety bonds, and requires that the 
            securities be valued at current market rates.
 Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan 
            Program: FMS will amend 31 CFR part 203 to support 
            operational changes resulting from the implementation of 
            new computer systems and to eliminate provisions that are 
            obsolete, duplicative, or more appropriately located in the 
            Treasury Financial Manual.
 Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan 
            Program: FMS may amend 31 CFR part 203 or such other part 
            to support proposed legislation that, if enacted, would 
            broaden Treasury's authority to invest the operating cash 
            of the Treasury in repurchase obligations.
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and Implementation 
of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007
On July 26, 2007, the President signed into law the Foreign Investment 
and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA), which becomes effective on 
October 24,

[[Page 69919]]

2007. Under the law, the President is to direct, subject to notice and 
comment, the issuance of regulations to carry out Section 721 of the 
Defense Production Act, which FINSA amended. Since its enactment in 
1988, Section 721 has been implemented by the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Secretary of the Treasury 
has served as the chairperson of CFIUS since its creation by Executive 
order in 1975 and, under FINSA, will continue as chairperson. We 
anticipate that the Department of the Treasury will play an important 
role, with other CFIUS agencies, in the issuance of these regulations.
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




128. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


12 USC 93a; 12 USC 3907; 12 USC 3909


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine capital 
standards to ensure the safety and soundness of the national banking 
system and to implement statutory requirements, OCC is amending various 
provisions of the capital rules for national banks. This change 
involves the implementation of the new framework for the Basel Capital 
Accord (Basel II). OCC is conducting this rulemaking jointly with the 
other Federal Banking Agencies. In addition, the Federal Banking 
Agencies also have published for comment additional proposed Basel II 
Guidance. See 72 FR 9084 (February 28, 2007).


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative 
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial 
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revises the 1988 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the 
largest banks in the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


OCC is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic 
financial institutions. This initiative is based on the OCC's general 
rulemaking authority in 12 U.S.C. 93a and its specific authority under 
12 U.S.C. 3907 and 3909. 12 U.S.C. 3907(a)(2) specifically authorizes 
OCC to establish minimum capital levels for financial institutions that 
OCC, in its discretion, deems necessary or appropriate.


Alternatives:


Please see the OCC's regulatory impact analysis, which can be found in 
its entirety at http://www.occ.treas.gov/law/basel.htm under the link 
of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for Risk-Based Capital Standards: 
Revised Capital Adequacy Guidelines (Basel II), Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, International and Economic Affairs 
(2006).''


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/04/03                    68 FR 45900
NPRM                            09/25/06                    71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End         01/23/07
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended From 01/23/
    2007 to 03/26/2007          12/26/06                    71 FR 77518
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ron Shimabukuro
Senior Counsel
Department of the Treasury
Comptroller of the Currency
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division
250 E Street SW.
Washington, DC 20219
Phone: 202 874-5090
Fax: 202 874-4889
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Split from 1557-AB14
RIN: 1557-AC91
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




129. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1462; 12 USC 1462a; 12 USC 1463; 12 USC 1464; 12 USC 1467a; 12 
USC 1828 (note)


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 567


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 2003, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (collectively, the 
``Federal Banking Agencies'') sought industry comment on a proposed 
framework for implementing the New Basel Capital Accord in the United 
States. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) described 
significant elements of the Advanced Internal Ratings-Based approach 
for credit risk and the Advanced Measurement Approaches for operational 
risk (together, the advanced approaches).


In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Federal Banking Agencies began a 
quantitative impact study to help determine the potential impact of 
implementing the capital framework set forth in the ``International 
Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital

[[Page 69920]]

Standards: A Revised Framework,'' which updates and makes some 
significant revisions to the preliminary New Basel Capital Accord 
document from 2003, upon which the above ANPRM was based.


After review of the results of the quantitative impact study and after 
further review and full consideration of public comments received on 
the ANPRM, the Federal Banking Agencies published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for implementation of this capital framework. The NPRM 
specified criteria that would be used to determine banking 
organizations that would be required to use the advanced approaches, 
subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, supervisory standards, 
and disclosure requirements. Other banking organizations that would 
meet the criteria, standards, and requirements also would be eligible 
to use the advanced approaches. Under the advanced approaches, banking 
organizations would use internal estimates of certain risk components 
as key inputs in the determination of their regulatory capital 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative 
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial 
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revised the 1988 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the 
largest savings associations in the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


OTS is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic 
financial institutions. This initiative is based on the OTS' general 
rulemaking authority under the Home Owners' Loan Act, and its authority 
under 12 USC 1464(t). 12 USC 1464(t)(1) specifically authorizes OTS to 
establish minimum capital levels for savings associations, including 
risk-based capital standards.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


See Economic Data.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/04/03                    68 FR 45900
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/03/03
NPRM                            09/25/06                    71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End         01/23/07
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    12/26/06                    71 FR 77518
NPRM Comment Period End         03/26/07
Final Rule                      12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Michael D. Solomon
Director, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-5654

Karen Osterloh
Special Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6639

David Riley
Senior Analyst, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6669
Related RIN: Related to 1550-AB11
RIN: 1550-AB56
BILLING CODE 4811-42-S

[[Page 69921]]




DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs 
that recognize the important public obligations to those who served 
this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined 
to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to 
programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. VA's major regulatory 
objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and 
efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA 
components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health 
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary 
mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-
quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their 
beneficiaries. The primary mission of the Veterans Health 
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis 
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing 
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The 
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury 
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their 
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries 
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful 
Nation to honor the memory and service of those who served in the Armed 
Forces.
VA's regulatory priorities include a special project to undertake a 
comprehensive review and improvement of its existing regulations. The 
first portion of this project is devoted to reviewing, reorganizing, 
and rewriting the VA's compensation and pension regulations found in 38 
CFR Part 3. The goal of the Regulation Rewrite Project is to improve 
the clarity and logical consistency of these regulations in order to 
better inform veterans and their family members of their entitlements.
BILLING CODE 8320-01-S

[[Page 69922]]




ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)



Statement of Priorities
OVERVIEW
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary 
Federal agency responsible for safeguarding the quality of the natural 
environment and protecting human health from deleterious pollutants. 
Since 1970, EPA, together with its partners and stakeholders, has been 
delivering a cleaner, healthier environment to the public. EPA's 
achievements, from regulating auto emissions to banning the use of DDT, 
from cleaning up toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer, and from 
increasing recycling to revitalizing inner-city brownfields, have 
resulted in cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land.
The Agency uses three guiding principles to govern its work to maintain 
the strongest level of environmental protection:
 Results and Accountability. EPA is committed to being a good 
            steward of our environment and a good steward of America's 
            tax dollars. To provide the public with the environmental 
            results it expects and deserves, we must operate as 
            efficiently and effectively as possible. Accountability for 
            results is a key component of the President's Management 
            Agenda, designed to make government citizen-centered, 
            results-oriented, and market-based.
 Innovation and Collaboration. Our progress depends both on our 
            ability and continued commitment to identify and use 
            innovative tools, approaches, and solutions to address 
            environmental problems and to engage extensively with our 
            partners, stakeholders, and the public. Under each of our 
            goals, we are working to promote a sense of environmental 
            stewardship and a shared responsibility for addressing 
            today's challenges.
 Best Available Science. EPA needs the best scientific 
            information available to anticipate potential environmental 
            threats, evaluate risks, identify solutions, and develop 
            protective standards. Sound science helps us ask the right 
            questions, assess information, and characterize problems 
            clearly to inform Agency decision makers.
EPA applies these principles as it works with its Federal, State, 
tribal, and local government partners to advance the mission of 
protecting human health and the environment. As a result of these 
collaborations, tremendous progress has been made in protecting and 
restoring the Nation's air, water, and land:
 EPA is advancing clean, renewable fuels and clean air through 
            a renewable fuel standard which encourages the use of 
            renewable fuels produced from American crops.
 By the end of FY 2006, more than 2,500 polluted waters 
            identified by states in 2000 were restored or found to be 
            meeting water quality standards.
 EPA continues to commit to Brownfields redevelopment via 
            strong public-private partnerships and innovative and 
            creative solutions. By encouraging cleanup and 
            redevelopment of America's abandoned and contaminated waste 
            sites, the Brownfields Program has leveraged more than $8.2 
            billion in private investment, more than 37,500 jobs, and 
            more than 8,300 properties assessed for potential 
            redevelopment.
 EPA has a leading role in homeland security by supporting the 
            protection of critical water infrastructure and 
            coordinating development of national capabilities and 
            strategies to address chemical, biological, and 
            radiological contamination from a terrorist event. In FY 
            2006, EPA received emergency response plans for 100 percent 
            of all large and medium community drinking water systems 
            that conducted vulnerability assessments; launched a pilot 
            water contamination warning system; developed short-term 
            exposure limits and established health effects guidelines 
            for exposure to hazardous chemicals or a terrorist 
            incident; and updated the National Response Plan in light 
            of lessons learned from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
EPA continues to accelerate its pace of environmental protection while 
maintaining the Nation's economic competitiveness. To that end, the 
Agency has a number of regulatory goals in order to meet the challenge 
while demonstrating progress consistent with its principles of results 
and accountability, innovation and collaboration, and the use of the 
best available science. Using these three principles as the foundation 
of its activity, EPA is sharpening focus on achieving measurable 
environmental results on the following five strategic goals:
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
While EPA has made tremendous progress toward achieving clean, healthy 
air that is safe to breathe, air pollution continues to be a great 
problem. The average adult breathes more than 3000 gallons of air every 
day, and children breathe more air per pound of body weight. Air 
pollutants, such as those that form urban smog can remain in the 
environment for long periods of time and can be carried by the wind 
hundreds of miles from their origin. Millions of people live in areas 
where urban smog, very small particles, and toxic pollutants may pose 
serious health concerns.
EPA's programs will allow the Nation to make substantial progress in 
protecting human health and ecosystems from air pollution. By 2011, 
virtually all of the country will have put in place controls to meet 
current air quality standards. New motor vehicles, including trucks and 
buses, will be 75 to 95 percent cleaner than they were in 2003. Power 
plant emissions will be reduced by approximately 40 percent from 2003 
levels. Taken together, these programs, when fully implemented, may 
prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths and hospitalizations, and 
may prevent millions of lost work and school days each year. These 
national programs will be supplemented by local control strategies 
designed to ensure that the air quality standards are achieved and 
maintained.
EPA also works to address climate change. Since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution, concentrations of several greenhouse gases 
(particularly carbon dioxide) have increased substantially. EPA is 
currently working with other Federal Agencies to implement the 
President's 20 in 10 program, to reduce gasoline consumption up to 20 
percent in the next ten years.
Clean and Safe Water
EPA's ``Clean and Safe Water'' goal defines the improvements that EPA 
expects to see in the quality of the Nation's drinking water and of 
surface waters over the next 5 years. These goals include improving 
compliance with drinking water standards, maintaining safe water 
quality at public beaches, restoring more than 2,000 polluted 
waterbodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.
In an effort to address the Nation's aging water infrastructure system, 
EPA is developing and implementing more innovative, market-based 
infrastructure financing tools for States, tribes, and

[[Page 69923]]

communities. These initiatives will increase and accelerate investment 
in water infrastructure and offer greater flexibility and cost-
effectiveness to provide clean and safe water for every American. 
Through technology, innovation, and collaboration, EPA makes better use 
of its resources to help the nation's water and wastewater systems be 
highly efficient and to move infrastructure toward greater 
sustainability for many years to come.
Land Preservation and Restoration
EPA's land preservation and restoration goal represents the need for 
managing waste, conserving and recovering the value of wastes, 
preventing releases, responding to emergencies, and cleaning up 
contaminated land. Uncontrolled wastes can cause acute illness or 
chronic disease and can threaten healthy ecosystems.
Over the next 5 years, EPA will establish or update approved controls 
to prevent dangerous releases at approximately 500 hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and also will address 2 
long-standing tribal waste management concerns: increasing the number 
of tribes covered by integrated waste management plans and cleaning up 
open dumps.
To reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional 
releases of harmful substances, EPA plans to maintain a high level of 
readiness to respond to emergencies, lead or oversee the response at 
more than 1,600 hazardous waste removals and reduce by 25 percent the 
number of gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to Facility 
Response Plan regulations relative to previous levels. EPA and its 
partners, and responsible parties will remediate contaminated land, 
reduce risk to the public, and enable communities to return properties 
to beneficial reuse. We will also apply leading-edge scientific 
research to improve our capability to assess conditions and determine 
relative risks posed by contamination at hazardous waste sites.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
 With a mix of regulatory programs and partnership approaches the 
Agency achieves results in ways that are efficient, innovative and 
sustainable. EPA continues to work collaboratively with other nations 
and international organizations to identify, develop, and implement 
policy options to address global environmental issues of mutual 
concern. Following this, EPA strives to build a community's capability 
to make decisions that affect the environment.
EPA's efforts to share information and provide assistance offers the 
tools needed to effectively address the myriad aspects of planned 
development or redevelopment. These contributions are tailored to 
circumstances spanning the issues of sensitive communities and 
international cooperation. In a similar manner, EPA's ecosystem 
protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that address 
specific at-risk regional areas, such as large waterbodies. EPA also 
works with partners to protect larger categories of threatened systems, 
such as estuaries and wetlands. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, EPA will assure ``no net loss'' of wetlands.
Science guides EPA's identification and treatment of emerging issues 
and advances our understanding of long-standing human health and 
environmental challenges. EPA's research is typically crosscutting, 
multidisciplinary, and at the cutting edge of environmental science; 
reflects the dynamic nature of science; and brings scientific rigor to 
the characterization of uncertainty and risk.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with 
Federal laws and regulations by monitoring compliance and taking 
enforcement actions that result in reduced pollution and improved 
environmental management practices. To accelerate the Nation's 
environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the 
source, to advance other forms of environmental stewardship, and to 
employ the tools of innovation and collaboration.
Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are 
critical to achieving the human health and environmental benefits 
expected from the country's environmental laws. EPA monitors compliance 
patterns and trends and focuses on priority problem areas identified in 
consultation with States, tribes, and other partners. The Agency 
supports the regulated community by assisting regulated entities in 
understanding environmental requirements, helping them identify cost-
effective compliance options and strategies, providing incentives for 
compliance.
EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, 
sustainability, and accountability to achieve its strategic goals. 
Collaborating closely with other Federal agencies, States, and tribes, 
the Agency identifies and promotes innovations that assist businesses 
and communities in improving their environmental performance. EPA works 
to improve and encourage pollution prevention and sustainable 
practices, helping businesses and communities move beyond compliance 
and become partners in protecting our national resources and improving 
the environment and our citizens' health.
Timeliness of Regulatory Actions
Completing actions on time or ahead of schedule means EPA keeps its 
commitments, improves the quality of decisions, and the public and 
environment benefit from EPA's key actions sooner. EPA is focusing 
management attention on several dozen key actions and tracking their 
adherence to an agreed-to schedule for the completion of a standard set 
of development milestones leading to promulgation of rules or 
finalization of other types of actions. Actions that are completed on 
time or early are used by EPA as potential exemplars of best practices; 
program offices that achieve timely completion of actions are 
encouraged to share their success stories and lessons learned. Actions 
that are off-track are identified early and corrective steps are taken 
to expedite their completion.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per the amendments to EO 12866, we are providing a combined aggregate 
estimate of costs and benefits of regulations included in the 
Regulatory Plan. Any aggregate estimate of total costs and benefits 
must be highly qualified. Problems with aggregation arise due to 
differing baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and 
type of regulatory costs and benefits considered. The aggregate 
estimates presented combine annualized and annual numbers. Cost savings 
are treated as benefits. Dollars were converted to 2001 using the GDP 
deflator. The ranges presented below do not reflect the full range of 
uncertainty in the benefit and cost estimates for these rules.
It is critical to note that the aggregate estimates omit important 
benefits and costs that cannot be monetized. For example, the estimates 
leave out many health and welfare benefits, such as ecosystem 
functions, visibility, avoided cases of chronic respiratory damage, 
hypertension, and coronary heart disease, among many others. In

[[Page 69924]]

addition, for many of the rules in the Plan, we were unable to estimate 
costs and benefits at this time because the range of policy options 
under consideration is wide and varied.
The monetized aggregate estimates provided below reflect the following 
rules in the Regulatory Plan: (1) Monetized cost and benefit 
information was provided for: Review of NAAQS for Ozone, Control of 
Emissions from New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines, Control 
of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Expanding the 
Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA, Lead-Based Paint Activities; 
Amendments for Renovation, Repair and Remodeling; (2) Monetized cost 
information (but no monetized benefits) was provided for: Endocrine 
Disruptor Screening Program; Implementing the Screening and Testing 
Phase, Test Rule; Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals, 
Pesticides: Data Requirements for Antimicrobials, and Final Revisions 
to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for CAFOS; (3) 
Monetized benefit information (but no monetized costs) was provided 
for: Definition of Solid Waste Revisions, Revisions to the SPCC Final 
Rule, Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials from the 
Petroleum Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification System to 
Produce Synthesis Gas, Hazardous Waste Management System.
Aggregate annual monetized benefits range from $5 billion to $104 
billion (benefit estimates reflect the full suite of standards under 
consideration for the ozone NAAQS). With the exception of the ozone 
NAAQS rule, we do not have sufficient information to provide a range 
for the aggregate cost estimates. For this reason, we are reporting the 
ozone cost range separate from the other rules. The annualized 
monetized costs for the ozone NAAQS rule range from $3.5 billion to $70 
billion (cost estimates reflect the full suite of standards under 
consideration for the ozone NAAQS.) Aggregate annual monetized costs 
for all other rules are estimated to be $1 billion. This estimate does 
not reflect the uncertainty in the cost estimates, as noted above.
Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to improve 
its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to 
small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' 
participation in its voluntary programs. A number of rules included in 
this Plan might be of particular interest to small businesses including
 Control of Emissions from Spark-Ignition Engines and Fuel 
            Systems from Marine Vessels and Small Equipment (2060-
            AM34), and
 Lead-Based Paint Activities; Amendments for Renovation, Repair 
            and Painting (2070-AC83).
For a more extensive list of rules affecting small businesses, please 
see appendices B and C to the Regulatory Agenda which is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/opei/orpm.htmlagenda.
 EPA's Regulatory Plan is an important element of the Agency's strategy 
for achieving environmental results within the framework described 
above. The Agency's regulatory program includes several efforts that 
will reduce the burden placed on small businesses while ensuring the 
integrity of the environment. Many of these have been nominated for 
Agency action through the public nomination process initiated by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001, 2002, and 2004 and many 
of these have been completed. Taken as a whole, the Agency's Regulatory 
Plan will ensure that the Nation continues to achieve improvements in 
environmental quality while minimizing burden to States and the 
regulated community.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN
Office of Air and Radiation
In 2007, a top priority for EPA is the implementation of a recent 
Presidential Executive Order to reduce gasoline consumption and 
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and other types of 
engines. To this end, the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is working 
with other Federal agencies to develop the rules needed to carry out 
this Executive Order. These regulations are intended to give effect to 
the President's State-of-the-Union proposal to reduce gasoline 
consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years by increasing the 
supply of alternative fuels and making motor vehicles more energy 
efficient. Another important and ongoing OAR regulatory priority is to 
protect public health and the environment from the harmful effects of 
fine particulate matter and ozone, the two air pollutants that persist 
widely in the Nation's air in amounts that exceed Clean Air Act health 
standards. Exposure to these pollutants is associated with numerous 
harmful effects on human health, including respiratory problems, heart 
and lung disease, and premature death. These pollutants also degrade 
visibility, an effect of particular concern in national parks and other 
scenic areas. In addition to ozone and particulate pollution, OAR is 
continuing to address toxic air pollution by controlling toxic 
emissions from both stationary sources and mobile sources such as cars 
and trucks. OAR is also working to increase the effectiveness and 
efficiency of its permitting and monitoring programs, which are among 
the main mechanisms through which clean-air protections are 
implemented. Finally, OAR is revising previously issued safety 
standards for nuclear-waste storage in response to a court decision. 
These efforts are described briefly below.
On May 14, 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order entitled 
``Cooperation Among Agencies in Protecting the Environment with Respect 
to Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Vehicles, and 
Nonroad Engines.'' OAR is working with other Federal agencies to 
implement this Executive Order by developing regulations to reduce 
gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. 
These regulations will use as a starting point the President's State-
of-the-Union proposal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 
the next 10 years. By increasing the supply of alternative fuels and 
making motor vehicles more energy efficient, this effort will serve to 
establish rules giving effect to the President's proposal.
To help control ozone and particulate pollution, OAR is developing 
additional rules as part of its program to reduce emissions from mobile 
sources. These rules will require additional emission reductions from 
certain marine engines, locomotives, and small equipment. These rules 
will enhance the overall mobile-source control program that has already 
set stringent standards for most categories of vehicles, engines, and 
their fuels.
OAR also continues to assess new scientific information that underlies 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In July, EPA 
proposed a rule revising the existing NAAQS for ozone, and will 
promulgate a final rule early in 2008. A rulemaking addressing 
standards for lead is also underway, with an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking due for publication in December.
EPA continues to address toxic air pollution under authority of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The

[[Page 69925]]

largest part of this effort is the ``Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology'' (MACT) program, which is now well into its second phase 
consisting of evaluation of the effectiveness of work done so far, 
assessment of the need for additional controls, and assessment of 
advances in control technology. In this second phase, EPA will combine 
the remaining MACT source categories requiring residual risk and 
technology reviews into several groups to help meet statutory dates, 
raise and resolve programmatic issues more effectively, minimize 
resources by using available data and focusing on high risk sources, 
and provide consistent review and analysis. Among the rulemakings 
currently underway is the Risk and Technology Review Phase II, Group 2, 
which addresses 21 source categories including aerospace manufacturing, 
oil and natural-gas production, and production of polymers and resins.
Since many air quality programs are administered through permitting and 
monitoring programs, OAR continues to work toward improving these 
programs to increase efficiency and reduce regulatory burden. 
Currently, OAR is continuing to develop rulemakings to streamline and 
improve its New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. This effort 
will clarify the circumstances under which companies must obtain 
construction permits before building new facilities or significantly 
modifying existing facilities. These revisions will provide more 
regulatory certainty by clarifying compliance requirements, and will 
also make the program easier to administer while maintaining its 
environmental benefits. In developing these NSR rule revisions, OAR is 
drawing upon many years of intense involvement with major stakeholders, 
who have helped shape a suite of reforms that are expected to both 
improve the environmental effectiveness of these programs and make them 
easier to comply with. OAR is also developing rulemakings to clarify 
and better define the kinds of monitoring required in Federal and State 
operating permit programs, and to clarify how to determine the 
potential emissions from various types of sources.
EPA also expects to complete a rulemaking amending the radiation 
standards governing the development of the Yucca Mountain site in 
Nevada, the Nation's designated geologic repository for spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These standards were initially 
issued in 2001 and were partially remanded by a Federal court in 2004. 
To address the remand, EPA must reassess the time frame for compliance 
in light of the National Academy's recommendation that compliance must 
be addressed at the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several 
hundred thousand years into the future.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
The primary goal of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 
Substances (OPPTS) is to prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial 
chemical risks to humans, communities and ecosystems. OPPTS employs a 
mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve this goal. 
During the past fiscal year, OPPTS proposed and finalized a number of 
significant regulatory actions that are briefly highlighted below. For 
more information about these regulatory actions, as well as information 
about our other programs and activities, please visit our Web site at 
www.epa.gov/oppts. Looking forward to the coming fiscal year, OPPTS 
expects to issue several significant regulatory actions that are also 
highlighted below.
In working to meet OPPTS's goal, EPA thoroughly evaluates pesticides to 
ensure that they will meet Federal safety standards to protect human 
health and the environment before they can be marketed and used in the 
United States. EPA uses data submitted by pesticide producers to form 
the bases for the pesticide risk assessments and decisions as to 
whether pesticides meet safety standards. The Agency has kept pace with 
the evolving scientific understanding of pesticide risks by requiring 
the submission of the data needed on a case-by-case basis and OPPTS 
updated its registration data requirements for conventional, 
biochemical, and microbial pesticides in 2007. As part of this 
continuing effort to update and/or establish pesticide data 
requirements, OPPTS expects to issue two proposed rules in 2008: One 
would update the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides in 40 
CFR Part 158; the other would establish data requirements for plant-
incorporated protectant (PIP) pesticides in 40 CFR Part 174.
In order to better protect human health and the environment, and to 
update and strengthen the pesticide worker safety programs, OPPTS 
expects to propose changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for 
certifying the competency of pesticide applicators to apply pesticides 
safely in late 2008. Many changes in State programs have occurred since 
the initial applicator certification regulations were promulgated in 
the 1970s. Today, many States' programs go beyond the current Federal 
regulations in training and certifying pesticide applicators. The 
Agency anticipates revisions that will broaden the scope of the 
certification program for occupational pesticide applicators, and 
strengthen the demonstration of competency as a requirement of 
certification. In conjunction with the applicator certification 
regulation enhancements, OPPTS will also propose enhancements to the 
agricultural worker protection regulation in a separate but related 
regulatory action to strengthen the elements of hazard communication 
and pesticide worker safety training.
Evidence suggests that environmental exposure to man-made chemicals 
that mimic hormones (endocrine disruptors) might cause adverse health 
effects in human and wildlife populations. The Food Quality Protection 
Act directed EPA to develop a chemical screening program (the Endocrine 
Disruptor Screening Program, EDSP), using appropriate validated test 
systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine 
whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans. OPPTS 
is implementing recommendations from a scientific advisory committee, 
which was established to advise EPA on the EDSP, by developing and 
validating test systems for determining whether a chemical might have 
effects similar to those produced by naturally occurring hormones. As 
part of this program EPA is also developing a draft framework for 
procedures and processes to use when implementing the screening and 
testing phase of the EDSP, and developed an initial list of chemicals 
for which testing will be required. In 2008, EPA anticipates finalizing 
the procedures and the list of chemicals for initial screening. The 
screening and testing phase of the program is expected to commence in 
2008.
In 2008, EPA will continue its work towards the Administration goal of 
eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a national health concern by 
2010 by implementing a program to address lead-based paint hazards 
associated with renovation, repair and painting activities. The p 
rogram will be composed of a combination of approaches including 
regulations, and education and outreach that will include elements 
specifically designed for industry and consumers. Industry outreach 
will include dissemination of

[[Page 69926]]

information regarding the regulation, lead-safe work practices, and 
training opportunities. Consumer outreach will be designed to expand 
consumer awareness, and create demand for the use of lead-safe work 
practices. EPA plans to finalize and begin implementation of the 
Renovation, Repair and Painting Program rule in 2008. The regulation is 
intended to minimize the introduction of lead hazards resulting from 
the disturbance of lead-based paint during renovation, repair, and 
painting activities. The regulation would require contractors 
conducting renovation, repair and painting activities in most target 
housing and child occupied facilities to be trained, certified, and to 
follow work practice standards designed to minimize the creation of 
lead hazards.
EPA continues to implement the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, a 
collaborative partnership between EPA and industry stakeholders, to 
develop health and safety screening information on sponsored high 
production volume chemicals. To complement this voluntary effort, OPPTS 
expects to propose a second test rule under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) in early 2008. This rule will require testing for a 
number of HPV chemicals that were not sponsored as part of the 
voluntary HPV Challenge Program in order to develop critical 
information about the environmental fate and potential hazards of those 
chemicals. When combined with exposure and use information obtained 
under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), the Agency will be in a position 
to evaluate potential health and environmental risks, and take 
appropriate actions, as necessary. In 2007 and continuing in 2008, EPA 
will begin to evaluate the HPV data and develop hazard screening/risk 
characterizations on the HPV chemicals. These Hazard/Risk 
Characterizations will be posted to the High Production Volume 
Information System (HPVIS) website as they are completed. EPA will also 
begin to assess lower-volume existing chemicals. These activities will 
help us identify needed next steps, including regulatory and voluntary 
measures, to obtain more detailed toxicity or exposure information, 
identify safer substitutes, or identify other risk mitigation steps, if 
necessary. Because of the head start provided by the HPV Challenge 
information and Inventory Update Rule reporting, this approach will 
result in risk management and testing decisions on HPV chemicals in the 
next several years. Additionally, EPA is committed to considering any 
relevant data generated by other countries or regions (e.g., Canada's 
Chemical Management Plan or the EU's REACH legislation) which would 
further inform our regulatory decisions.
In July of 2007, EPA issued for public comment draft documents 
regarding the design of a voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship 
Program (NMSP) under TSCA. The NMSP will complement and support EPA's 
new and existing chemical programs under TSCA and will help provide a 
firmer scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging 
the development of key scientific information and contribute to an 
improved understanding of risk management practices for nanoscale 
chemical substances (nanoscale materials). EPA held a public meeting on 
the NMSP on August 2007, and in September 2007, the Agency held a 
public scientific peer consultation on material characterization of 
nanoscale materials as well as a conference on the pollution prevention 
benefits of nanotechnology. If information from the NMSP or other 
information indicates potential new uses of existing chemicals that may 
result in new exposures or to fill information gaps, EPA may issue a 
significant new use rule or section 8 reporting rule under TSCA.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) contributes to 
the Agency's overall mission of protecting public health and the 
environment by focusing on the safe management of wastes; preparing 
for, preventing and responding to chemical and oil spills, accidents, 
and emergencies; enhancing homeland security; and cleaning up 
contaminated property and making it available for reuse. EPA carries 
out our mission in partnership with other Federal agencies, States, 
tribes, local governments, communities, nongovernmental organizations, 
and the private sector. To further our mission, OSWER has identified 
several regulatory priorities for the upcoming fiscal year that will 
promote stewardship and resource conservation and focus regulatory 
efforts on risk reduction and statutory compliance.
EPA is seeking to further amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements to reduce the burden imposed on 
the regulated community for complying with these SPCC requirements, 
while maintaining protection of human health and the environment.
Specifically, on October 1, 2007, EPA proposed amendments to the Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule at 40 CFR part 112. 
With these proposed changes, EPA intends to provide clarity, tailor, 
and streamline requirements as appropriate in order to encourage 
greater compliance with the SPCC regulations. These amendments are 
intended to exempt certain containers from the SPCC requirements; 
clarify the general secondary containment requirements; provide 
streamlined requirements for a subset qualified facilities; increase 
flexibility in the security requirements and flexibility in the use of 
industry standards to comply with integrity testing requirements; 
provide additional flexibility in meeting the facility diagram 
requirements; clarify the flexibility provided by the definition of 
``facility;'' and streamline a number of requirements for oil 
production facilities.
The ``definition of solid waste'' rule determines which hazardous 
secondary materials that are recycled are regulated under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste 
regulations and which are not. Many hazardous secondary materials that 
are or could be reclaimed as part of the recycling process are 
regulated as hazardous wastes. This can discourage recycling of the 
wastes, due to requirements for permits (which trigger corrective 
action), manifests, and the other requirements imposed by the Subtitle 
C hazardous waste regulations. EPA is seeking innovative approaches 
that will increase the safe recycling of hazardous waste, while still 
ensuring that these materials are properly handled. In its supplemental 
proposal, EPA is proposing to remove unnecessary regulatory controls 
over certain recycling practices; EPA expects to make it easier to 
safely recycle hazardous secondary material. Exclusions are proposed 
for materials that are generated and reclaimed under the control of the 
generator; materials that are generated and transferred to another 
person or company for reclamation under specific conditions; and 
materials that EPA deems nonwaste through a case-by-case petition 
process. If the exclusions are promulgated as proposed and are adopted 
by all the states, EPA expects this action to result in $107 million in 
average annual cost savings.
EPA is considering revising the RCRA hazardous regulations to exclude 
from

[[Page 69927]]

being a solid waste any oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials that 
are generated by the petroleum refining industry if such materials are 
destined to be processed in a gasification system at the petroleum 
refinery and used in the manufacture of synthesis gas. This rule 
promotes increased energy efficiency, by allowing oil-bearing hazardous 
secondary materials to be used as a source of energy, while reducing 
the volume of hazardous waste that would otherwise be treated and land 
disposed. With an estimated savings between $46.4 million and $48.7 
million in net social benefits per year, the final rule takes a 
significant step forward for the environment and for energy self-
sufficiency.
The comparable fuels program currently allows specific industrial 
wastes to be excluded from RCRA hazardous waste requirements when they 
are used as a fuel and do not contain hazardous constituent levels 
exceeding those in a typical benchmark fuel that facilities could 
otherwise use as a fuel. EPA is considering promulgating a rule that 
would expand those hazardous wastes that could be used safely for their 
energy value without the expense of a RCRA permit, to promote the use 
of these wastes as a renewable domestic source of energy and reduce our 
use of fossil fuels. This rule will promote safe energy recovery and 
remove unnecessary costs.
The Agency plans to propose revisions to the treatment standards for 
the disposal of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts. EPA is 
focusing on removing disincentives to the recycling of spent 
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, which would create more 
incentives to metals recovery, over disposal.
The Office of Management and Budget's Reports to Congress on the Costs 
and Benefits of Regulations for 2001, 2002 and 2004 included reform 
nominations for the Agency to consider. The following rulemakings 
mentioned above support reform nominations: (1) Expanding the 
Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA, (2) Definition of Solid Waste 
Revisions, (3) Revisions to Recycling Requirements for Spent 
Hydrorefining and Hydroprocessing Catalysts, and (4) Revisions to the 
SPCC. In addition, two additional rulemakings under development also 
pertain to the reform nominations: (1) Streamlining Laboratory Waste 
Management in Academic and Research Laboratories and (2) Management of 
Cement Kiln Dust (a by-product of the cement manufacturing process.) 
For the former rule, the Agency proposed a set of alternative standards 
that are more tailored to the way laboratories operate. For the latter 
rule, the Agency proposed a comprehensive set of standards for the 
management of cement kiln dust.
Office of Water
EPA's Office of Water's primary goals are to ensure that drinking water 
is safe; restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic 
ecosystems to protect human health; support economic and recreational 
activities; and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife. 
In order to meet these goals, EPA has established a number of 
regulatory priorities for the coming year. They include actions 
affecting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 
requirements and drinking water.
EPA is planning to publish four actions affecting National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements in FY 
2007. The first is a rule addressing the NPDES permitting requirements 
and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for 
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in response to the order 
issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance 
et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). The final rule responds to 
the court order while furthering the statutory goal of restoring and 
maintaining the Nation's water quality and effectively ensuring that 
CAFOs properly manage manure generated by their operations. A second 
action is the Water Transfers rulemaking. EPA plans to finalize the 
rule that addresses the question of whether the NPDES permitting 
program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is applicable to 
water control facilities that merely convey or connect navigable 
waters. A third action that EPA plans to issue is a policy regarding 
NPDES permit requirements for peak wet weather diversions at publicly 
owned treatment works (POTW) treatment plants serving separate sanitary 
sewer collection systems. Lastly, EPA began development of NPDES 
permitting framework under the CWA for the discharge of pollutants 
incidental to the normal operation of vessels (e.g., bilgewater, deck 
runoff, graywater). Development of NPDES permits is necessary in light 
of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court 
of California in which the Court ruled that EPA's regulation excluding 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES 
permitting exceeded the Agency's authority under the CWA.
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




130. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR LEAD

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, May 1, 2008, As per 5/14/2005 order.


Final, Judicial, September 1, 2008, As per 5/14/2005 order.


Abstract:


On October 5, 1978 the EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for 
lead under section 109 of the Act (43 FR 46258). Both primary and 
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 [micro]g/m3 as a 
quarterly average (maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a calendar 
quarter). Subsequent to this initial standard-setting, the Clean Air 
Act requires that the standard be reviewed periodically. The last such 
review occurred during the period 1986-1990. For that review, an Air 
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) was completed in 1986 with a 
supplement in 1990. Based on information contained in the AQCD, an EPA 
Staff Paper and Exposure Assessment were prepared. Following the 
completion of these documents, the agency did not propose any revisions 
to the 1978 Pb NAAQS. The current review of the Pb air-quality criteria 
was initiated in November 2004 by EPA's National Center for 
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) with a general call for information 
published in the Federal Register. In January 2005, NCEA released a 
work plan for the review and revision of the Pb AQCD. Workshops were 
held to provide author feedback on a developing draft of the AQCD in 
August 2005. The draft AQCD was released December 1, 2005. The EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards prepared a draft Staff 
Paper for the Administrator, which included

[[Page 69928]]

an initial evaluation of the key studies and scientific information 
contained in the AQCD and additional preliminary technical analyses. 
The AQCD and draft Staff Paper were reviewed by the Clean Air 
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public. An ANPRM will be 
published outlining the results of the final risk assessment and giving 
consideration to the policy assessment. As the lead NAAQS review is 
completed, the Administrator's proposal to reaffirm or revise the lead 
NAAQS will be published with a request for public comment. Input 
received during the public comment period will be considered in the 
Administrator's final decision.


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under 
Section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards 
are established for the protection of public health, while the 
``secondary'' standards are to protect against public welfare or 
ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost and benefit estimates are being developed with the proposal.


Risks:


The current national ambient air quality standards for lead are 
intended to protect against public health risks. During the course of 
this review, a risk assessment will be conducted to evaluate health 
risks associated with the retention or revision of the lead standards. 
Welfare effects will also be reviewed in relation to retention or 
revision of the current standard.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/07
NPRM                            04/00/08
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5059;


Agency Contact:
Ginger Tennant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4072
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: [email protected]

Karen Martin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5274
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN83
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



131. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP); IMPLEMENTING THE 
SCREENING AND TESTING PHASE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603 ``TSCA''; 21 USC 346(a) ``FFDCA''; 42 USC 300(a)(17) 
``SDWA''; 7 USC 136 ``FIFRA''


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended 
by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, directs EPA to establish and 
implement a program whereby industry will be required to screen and 
test all pesticide chemicals to determine whether certain substances 
may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a 
naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the 
Administrator may designate. The requirements of Section 408(p) were 
implemented through the creation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program (EDSP) in 1998. The EDSP has the following three components 
that are proceeding simultaneously: 1) developing and validating 
assays; 2) setting chemical testing priorities; and 3) establishing 
408(p) testing orders and related data procedures. A Federal Advisory 
Committee Act committee has provided advice to the EDSP on assay 
development and validation. For chemical testing priorities, the 
approach to selecting the first 50-100 chemicals was finalized in 
September 2005 (70 FR 56449) and EPA implemented that approach. EPA 
published a draft list of 73 pesticide active ingredients and high 
production volume (HPV) pesticide inert chemicals for initial screening 
in June 2007 (72 FR 33486). EPA intends to commence Tier 1 screening of 
the first group of pesticide chemicals by issuing test orders under 
FFDCA section 408(p) to chemical companies identified as the 
manufacturer or processor of the identified chemicals, including the 
pesticide registrant. EPA is developing a draft implementation policy 
that will describe the procedures that EPA will use to issue orders, 
the procedures that order recipients would use to respond to the order, 
how data protection and compensation will be addressed in the test 
orders, and other related procedures or policies.


Statement of Need:


The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Implementation of the 
Screening and Testing Phase fulfills the statutory direction and 
authority to screen pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants 
for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system and adversely 
affect human health and wildlife.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The screening and testing phase of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program (EDSP) potentially will encompass a broad range of types of 
chemicals, including pesticide chemicals, TSCA chemicals, chemicals 
that may be found in sources of drinking water, chemicals that may have 
an effect that is cumulative to the effect of a pesticide chemical, 
chemicals that are both pesticide chemicals and TSCA chemicals, and 
other chemicals that are combinations of these types of chemicals. As 
discussed in the Proposed Statement of Policy, EPA has a number of 
authorities at its disposal

[[Page 69929]]

to require testing of these types of chemicals. The Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) section 408(p) provides EPA authority to 
require testing of all pesticide chemicals and any other substance that 
may have an effect that is cumulative to an effect of a pesticide 
chemical if EPA determines that a substantial population may be exposed 
to the substance. 21 U.S.C. 346a)(p). Likewise, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) provides EPA with authority to require testing of any 
substance that may be found in sources of drinking water if EPA 
determines that a substantial population may be exposed to the 
substance. 42 USC sec 300j-17. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides EPA with authority to require testing 
of pesticides if EPA determines that additional data are required to 
maintain in effect an existing registration. 7 USC sec 136a(c)(2)(B). 
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides authority for EPA to 
require testing of TSCA chemicals, provided that it makes certain 
hazard and/or exposure findings. 15 USC sec 2603. In addition, EPA has 
authority to issue consent orders to require testing when interested 
parties agree on an acceptable testing program. 51 FR 23706 (June 30, 
1986).


Alternatives:


A federal role is mandated under cited authority. There is no 
alternative to the role of the Federal government on this issue to 
ensure that pesticides, commercial chemicals and contaminants are 
screened and tested for endocrine disruption potential. A limited 
amount of testing may be conducted voluntarily but this will fall far 
short of the systematic screening which is necessary to protect public 
health and the environment and ensure the public that all important 
substances have been adequately evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is too early to project the costs and benefits of this program 
accurately. However, a preliminary rough estimate by industry indicated 
a cost of $200,000 per chemical. It is also too early to quantify the 
benefits of this program quantitatively. The goal of the program is to 
reduce the risks identified below.


Risks:


Evidence is continuing to mount that wildlife and humans may be at risk 
from exposure to chemicals operating through an endocrine mediated 
pathway. Epidemiological studies on the associations between chemical 
exposures and adverse endocrine changes continue to evaluate this 
problem in humans. Wildlife effects have been more thoroughly 
documented. Abnormalities in birds, marine mammals, fish, amphibians, 
alligators, and shellfish have been documented in the U.S., Europe, 
Japan, Canada, and Australia which have been linked to specific 
chemical exposures. Evidence is sufficient for the U.S. to proceed on a 
two track strategy: Research on the basic science regarding endocrine 
disruption and screening with validated assays to identify which 
chemicals are capable of interacting with the endocrine system. The 
combination of research and test data submitted in this program will 
enable EPA to take action to reduce risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Draft Procedures                11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4728; EPA publication information: Notice; Split from RIN 2070-
AD26. In August 2000, the Agency submited the required Status Report to 
Congress. In March 2002, the Agency submitted the requested status 
report to Congress on the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation 
subcommittee under the National Advisory Council on Environmental 
Policy and Technology.


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm

Agency Contact:
William Wooge
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7201M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8476
Fax: 202 564-8482
Email: [email protected]

Joe Nash
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8886
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD61
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



132. NANOSCALE MATERIALS UNDER TSCA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2601et seq


CFR Citation:


Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Nanoscale materials are chemical substances containing structures on 
the scale of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers, and may have different 
molecular organizations and properties than the same chemical 
substances on a larger scale. Because such materials may have novel 
properties and present novel issues, evaluating and managing health and 
environmental risks of nanoscale materials poses a new challenge. Under 
the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has the authority to require the 
development of data necessary for the assessment of chemical substances 
and mixtures from persons that manufacture or process them when 
statutory findings concerning (1) production volume and exposure/entry 
into the environment or (2) potential hazard can be made, and to 
prevent and eliminate unreasonable risk of injury to human health and 
environment from chemical substances and mixtures. The Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is establishing a voluntary 
program to

[[Page 69930]]

assemble existing data and information from manufacturers and 
processors of certain nanoscale materials. With this assembled 
material, EPA will take appropriate steps to protect human health and 
the environment from unreasonable risk from these substances. In 
October 2006 EPA announced a collaborative process to design a 
nanoscale material stewardship program inviting 500 organizations and 
agencies to participate. On July 12, 2007, the Agency published a 
document that describes specific elements regarding a voluntary 
stewardship program for nanoscale materials, a proposed information 
collection request, and a paper that describes determining the TSCA 
inventory status of nanoscale materials. In addition, EPA conducted a 
public meeting on August 2 to receive oral comments on the stewardship 
program and the published documents. A notice announcing the 
stewardship program including final versions of any documents is 
scheduled to be published in February, 2008.


Statement of Need:


There is evolving understanding of a new technology with regard to 
health and safety implications from exposure to nanoscale materials. 
This is also true in the areas of environmental fate, efficacy of 
exposure mitigation practices, etc. Therefore, at present the lack of 
information leads to challenges in the assessment of and decision-
making on nanoscale materials.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under TSCA, EPA has the authority to require the development of data 
adequate for the assessment of chemical substances and mixtures from 
persons that manufacture or process them, and to prevent and eliminate 
unreasonable risk of injury to human health and environment from 
chemical substances and mixtures.


Alternatives:


The stewardship program is an effective yet flexible alternative to 
traditional regulatory approaches.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


EPA will use information from the stewardship program to inform 
appropriate steps and future framework to protect human health and the 
environment from unreasonable risk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: TSCA Inventory 
    Status                      07/12/07                    72 FR 38083
Notice: Final Program 
    Announcement                02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5058; EPA publication information: Notice: TSCA Inventory 
Status - http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2007/July/Day-12/
t13558.htm; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122


Agency Contact:
Jim Alwood
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8974
Fax: 202 564-4775
Email: [email protected]

Jim Willis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0104
Fax: 202 564-9490
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ30
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




133. IMPLEMENTING PERIODIC MONITORING IN FEDERAL AND STATE OPERATING 
PERMIT PROGRAMS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 70.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 64


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would revise the Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule (40 CFR 
part 64) to be implemented through the operating permits rule (40 CFR 
parts 70 and 71) to define when periodic monitoring for monitoring 
stationary source compliance must be created, and to include specific 
criteria that periodic monitoring must meet. This rule satisfies our 4-
step strategy announced in the final Umbrella Monitoring Rule 
(published January 22, 2004) to address monitoring inadequacies. The 
four steps were: 1) To clarify the role of title V permits in 
monitoring [Umbrella Monitoring Rule]; 2) to provide guidance for 
improved monitoring in PM-Fine SIP's; 3) to take comment on correction 
of inadequate monitoring provisions in underlying rules; and 4) to 
provide guidance on periodic monitoring. We have completed the RIA data 
collection and most of the analyses,and are beginning review with OPEI 
and an economic sub-work group.


Statement of Need:


The ''periodic monitoring'' rules, 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), require that ``[w]here the applicable requirement 
does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental 
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as 
monitoring), [each title V permit must contain] periodic monitoring 
sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that 
are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, as 
reported pursuant to [Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)]. 
Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, 
units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent 
with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be 
sufficient to meet the requirements of [Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 
Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B)].`` Sections 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), called 
the umbrella monitoring rule, require that each title V permit contain, 
`'[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance 
certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the permit.'' On January 22, 2004 (69 Federal Register

[[Page 69931]]

3202), EPA announced that the Agency has determined that the correct 
interpretation of Sec. Sec.  70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these 
sections do not provide a basis for requiring or authorizing review and 
enhancement of existing monitoring in title V permits independent of 
any review and enhancement as may be required under the periodic 
monitoring rules, the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64)(62 FR 54900, October 
22, 1997) where it applies, and other applicable requirements under the 
Act.11 This action is to publish a separate proposed rule to address 
what monitoring constitutes periodic monitoring under Sec. Sec.  
70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and what types of monitoring 
should be created under these provisions. The intended effect of the 
rule revisions in this proposal is to focus case-by-case reviews on 
those applicable requirements for which we can identify potential gaps 
in the existing monitoring provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 502(b)(2) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
establishing minimum requirements for operating permit programs, 
including ``[m]onitoring and reporting requirements.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
7661a(b)(2). Second, section 504(b) authorizes EPA to prescribe 
``procedures and methods'' for monitoring ``by rule.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
7661c(b). Section 504(b) provides: ``The Administrator may by rule 
prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for 
monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but 
continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative 
methods are available that provide sufficiently reliable and timely 
information for determining compliance. . . .`` Other provisions of 
title V refer to the monitoring required in individual operating 
permits. Section 504(c) of the Act, which contains the most detailed 
statutory language concerning monitoring, requires that ''[e]ach [title 
V permit] shall set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance 
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the 
permit terms and conditions.`` 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7661c(c). Section 504(c) 
further specifies that ''[s]uch monitoring and reporting requirements 
shall conform to any applicable regulation under [section 504(b)]. . . 
.`` Section 504(a) more generally requires that ''[e]ach [title V 
permit] shall include enforceable emission limitations and standards, . 
. . and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance 
with applicable requirements of this Act, including the requirements of 
the applicable implementation plan.`` 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7661c(a).


Alternatives:


Some existing monitoring required under applicable requirements could 
be improved and will be addressed in connection with both the upcoming 
PM2.5 implementation rulemaking and by improving monitoring in certain 
federal rules or monitoring in SIP rules not addressed in connection 
with the PM2.5 implementation guidance or rulemaking over a longer time 
frame.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We are assessing the benefits associated with improved monitoring 
including the reduction in source owner response time to potential 
excess emissions problems. Such reduced response time to take 
corrective action that will be required by the rule will result in 
measurable emissions reductions that will be balanced against the cost 
of increased equipment, data collection, and recordkeeping costs. We 
estimate the total costs of the rule to be more than $100 million.


Risks:


There are no environmental and health risks associated with 
implementing this monitoring rule; the underlying rules with emissions 
limits address those risks for each subject source category. The effect 
of the monitoring resulting from this rule will be to reduce the 
occurrence of excess emissions episodes that raise such risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4699.2; Split from RIN 2060-AK29.


Agency Contact:
Peter Westlin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C304-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1058
Fax: 919 541-4028
Email: [email protected]

Robin Langdon
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D205-02
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4048
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN00
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



134. REVISIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF POTENTIAL TO EMIT (PTE)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401; 42 USC 7412; 42 USC 7414; 42 USC 7416; 42 USC 7601


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 51; 40 CFR 52; 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking rule would revise the definition of the term 
``potential to emit'' (PTE) used in numerous regulations to determine 
the applicability of major source requirements. The regulatory 
amendments will address enforceability issues raised in court decisions 
by the D.C. Circuit regarding the types of limitations allowed to be 
used in a source's PTE calculations. We plan revisions to the 
definitions of PTE for three major source Act programs: (1) Major New 
Source Review (NSR) program, (2) the section 112 program that regulates 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and (3) the title V Federal operating 
permits program. We also plan to amend regulations that were not part 
of the court cases challenging the definition of potential to emit 
(e.g., visibility rules and Federal operating permits program rules) in 
order to be consistent with other EPA regulations. In addition to 
addressing the issue of whether PTE limitations have to be federally 
enforceable, the revised definition of PTE would set forth the

[[Page 69932]]

specific criteria a limitation must meet to be effective. Finally, the 
proposal would clarify that EPA now uses the term ``federally 
enforceable'' to refer only to the ability of the Federal government or 
citizens to enforce the requirement in federal courts, and not to the 
effectiveness of PTE limits as well.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rulemaking responds to three court decisions issued in 
1995 and 1996 that remanded EPA's regulatory requirement that PTE 
limits be federally enforceable. Although the federal enforceability 
requirement was vacated in the Federal PSD, NSR, and title V rules, the 
section 112 program rules were not vacated and thus still contain the 
federal enforceability requirement. In the interim however, until EPA 
clarifies the issues related to federal enforceability of PTE limits, 
current EPA policy recognizes State enforceable PTE limits for purposes 
of avoiding section 112 and Title V requirements in many circumstances. 
The new regulations would respond to the court's remands in the various 
cases.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The proposed rule responds to three court orders regarding the federal 
enforceability component in the definition of ``potential to emit.'' 
See National Mining Association v. EPA (59 F. 3d 1351, D.C. Cir. 1995), 
Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 
1995) and Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. 
Cir. June 28, 1996). In those cases, the court questioned federally 
enforceability as a necessary criteria for effective PTE limits. The 
definitions of PTE in the implementing regulations for the major source 
programs interpret the statutory term ``potential to emit'' and provide 
a legal mechanism for sources that wish to restrain their emissions to 
avoid triggering major source requirements. Several provisions of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) require that ``major'' sources be 
regulated more stringently than sources that are not major. A ``major'' 
source generally is defined as one that either ``emits or has the 
potential to emit'' air pollutants above a specified amount (referred 
to as major source thresholds). Until EPA addresses the issues and 
clarifies the PTE definitions, there will be some uncertainty regarding 
what is required for enforceability of PTE limits. Parties currently 
rely on EPA guidance for determining if PTE limits are legally 
enforceable and effective.


Alternatives:


To address the court decisions EPA must either (i) remove the exclusive 
federal enforceability requirement or (ii) provide an explanation as to 
why federal enforceability enhances the effectiveness of PTE limits to 
such a degree that it is within reason to require federally enforceable 
limits. In this rulemaking, EPA will consider both options provided by 
the court and propose our preferred option. The proposal will 
specifically request comment on our preferred approach as well as any 
alternative options.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule will not impose additional costs on sources. First, 
PTE limits are voluntary in that the source chooses to take a PTE limit 
rather than meet major source requirements. Moreover, currently, 
sources that wish to take PTE limits must demonstrate that their 
restrictions are effective according to a number of existing EPA policy 
documents and applicable regulations, for example under minor new 
source review regulations and guidance. By codifying the criteria that 
make PTE limits effective, we will be providing additional certainty 
and clarity for sources wishing to obtain PTE limits. We expect that 
clarifying enforceability would yield benefits in terms of improved 
information about sources emissions and compliance. But because PTE 
limits generally reduce potential rather than actual emissions and 
since PTE limits are already in widespread use, we do not expect 
significant environmental impacts associated with this rule change. 
These regulations will impose a burden increase initially on those 
State and local programs that may need to revise or remove PTE 
definitions in their rules to make them consistent with these 
amendments as approved in the final rule. Thereafter, we expect a 
reduction in burden for all programs due to a less burdensome 
administrative process.


Risks:


There are no environmental and health risks associated with 
implementing the proposed amended PTE definition; the underlying rules 
with emissions limits address those risks for each subject source 
category.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5025;


Agency Contact:
Grecia Castro
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1351
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]

Lynn Hutchinson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5795
Fax: 919-541-4028
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN65
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



135. RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW PHASE II GROUP 2

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


CAA Sections 112(f)(2), 112(d)(6)


CFR Citation:


00 CFR NYD


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) EPA is required to review MACT standards 
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years. EPA also must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 
years after promulgation and promulgate standards under CAA Section 
112(f)(2) if required to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety. EPA will combine the remaining MACT source categories requiring 
residual risk and technology reviews into several groups to enable us 
to more closely meet statutory dates, raise and

[[Page 69933]]

resolve programmatic issues in one action, minimize resources by using 
available data and focusing on high risk sources, and provide 
consistent review and analysis. We will use available data including 
emissions from the most recent 2002 national emission inventory (NEI) 
and augment it with available site-specific data. This action was 
originally referred to as RTR Phase II and included 34 MACT standards 
and 50 source categories. We reduced the scope of this action and will 
now focus on RTR Phase II Group 2 which consists of 11 MACT standards 
covering 21 source categories with MACT compliance dates of 2002 and 
earlier. We plan to model each MACT source category to obtain 
inhalation risks, including cancer risk and incidence, population 
cancer risk, and non-cancer effects (chronic and acute). We also plan 
to evaluate multipathway risk associated with those source categories 
with significant levels of persistent and bioaccumulative HAP. We 
published an ANPRM in March 2007 to solicit public comments and 
corrections on emissions data that will be used to assess risk for 
these source categories. We will remodel the categories based on the 
updated data. EPA will then evaluate the effectiveness and cost of 
additional risk reduction options and make acceptability and ample-
margin-of-safety determinations in accordance with Benzene NESHAP 
decision framework. Where the need for additional controls are 
identified, standards would be developed that include technology, work 
practice, or performance standards as amendments to the existing MACT 
standards.


The 11 MACT standards, the 21 source categories, and the associated 
NAICS codes are listed below.


Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities, 336411


Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 4883


Mineral Wool Production, 32799


Natural Gas Transmission and Storage, 486210


Oil and Natural Gas Production, 211


Pharmaceuticals Production, 3254


Group I Polymers and Resins, 325212


Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production


Hypalon\TM\Production


Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production


Polybutadiene Rubber Production


Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production,


Group IV Polymers and Resins, 325211


Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production


Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production


Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production


Nitrile Resins Production


Polyethylene Terephthalate Production


Polystyrene Production


Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production


Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, 331312


Printing and Publishing Industry, 32311


Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations, 36611


EPA will finalize these in two groups; one group will be finalized 
following the schedule noted below, the other will be finalized in 
2009.


Statement of Need:


Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) EPA is required to review MACT standards 
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years. EPA also must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 
years after promulgation and promulgate standards under CAA Section 
112(f)(2) if required to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6).


Alternatives:


Where additional controls are identified, risk reduction alternatives 
will be evaluated that include technology, work practice, or 
performance standards. Any alternatives that are selected would be 
implemented as amendments to the existing MACT standards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


For the risk reduction alternatives we will evaluate costs, emission 
reductions, risk reductions, various measures of cost effectiveness and 
where appropriate, benefits analysis. We plan to consider the added 
benefit of reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, including PM, and 
green house gas emissions.The facts underlying the risk determination 
will be key factors in making any subsequent technology review 
determination.


Risks:


Each MACT source category will be assessed to determine cancer and 
noncancer inhalation risks, environmental risks, and multipathway 
risks. Cancer risk will include maximum individual risk (MIR), 
incidence, and population risk, and non-cancer effects will include 
chronic and acute risks. We also plan to evaluate the multipathway risk 
associated with those source categories with significant levels of 
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/29/07                    72 FR 14734
ANPRM; comment period 
    extension                   05/25/07                    72 FR 29287
NPRM                            11/00/07
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5093; EPA publication information: ANPRM;


Sectors Affected:


3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; 3313 Alumina and 
Aluminum Production and Processing; 32731 Cement Manufacturing; 3341 
Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum 
Refineries; 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of 
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum); 22132 Sewage Treatment 
Facilities


Agency Contact:
Paula Hirtz
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2618
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: [email protected]

Ken Hustvedt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-5395
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN85

[[Page 69934]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



136.  RULEMAKING TO ADDRESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR 
VEHICLES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Sections 202, 206, 208, 211


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 86, 40 CFR 80


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will implement the President's recent Executive Order to 
address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. This regulatory 
effort will evaluate reductions in gas consumption and greenhouse gas 
emissions from motor vehicles, using as a starting point the 
President's proposal to reduce gasoline consumption by up to 20% over 
the next 10 years. By increasing the supply of alternative fuels and 
making motor vehicles more energy efficient, this effort will serve to 
establish rules giving effect to the President's proposal.


Statement of Need:


On May 14, 2007 President Bush signed an Executive Order requiring 
Federal agencies to take the first steps toward regulations to control 
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from motor vehicles and their fuels. The 
President also directed agencies to take steps to cut gasoline 
consumption and GHG from motor vehicles using his ``Twenty in Ten'' 
plan as a starting point. This plan would achieve reductions in U.S. 
gasoline consumption of up to 20 percent over the next 10 years. Up to 
a fifteen-percent reduction in petroleum-based consumption would come 
through the use of renewable and alternative fuels, and up to a five-
percent reduction would come from increased fuel efficiency for cars 
and trucks. The President directed EPA, DOT, DOE, and USDA to complete 
this process by the end of 2008. Based on this directive, we have 
established a schedule to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by the 
end of 2007 and a final rule by the end of October 2008.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must determine, 
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, whether greenhouse gas 
emissions (GHG) from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air 
pollution that endangers public health or welfare. Based on that 
Supreme Court ruling, GHG are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. 
EPA expects to address whether GHG from new motor vehicles meet the 
endangerment criteria in the process of proposing regulations to 
control GHG from new motor vehicles and their fuels. EPA is following 
the directions of the Presidential Executive Order in proposing such 
standards.


The primary authority to regulate motor vehicles to reduce their 
emissions falls under Section 202(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act. This 
provision requires that the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe 
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any 
class or classes of new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines which 
in his judgment cause or contribute to air pollution and which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. A 
regulatory action depends on an Administrator determination that the 
GHG emissions from new motor vehicles causes, or contributes to, air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 
health or welfare.


In setting fuel standards, two sections of the Clean Air Act are being 
considered. The primary authority for regulating motor vehicle fuels 
and fuel additives falls under Section 211(c) where the Administrator 
may, on the basis of information available to him, by regulation, 
control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, 
offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a 
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad 
vehicle where a similar endangerment finding is made. This section 
provides authority to address all fuels and additives, including 
renewable and alternative fuels. Further, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(EPAct 2005, Public Law 109-58) amended the Clean Air Act by adding 
section Section 211(o) which requires EPA to set minimum volume 
standards for renewable fuel use. EPAct 2005 established the volumes of 
renewable fuel to be used through 2012, and established a minimum level 
to be used after that date which EPA can adjust upward based on 
consideration of certain factors. EPA is considering an integrated 
compliance approach that will use both 211(c) and 211(o) authorities 
for the fuel-related provisions of the proposed GHG rule.


Alternatives:


EPA will seek comment on alternatives to approaches being developed in 
the proposed rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost and benefit information is being developed as the rulemaking 
process proceeds. Costs and benefit information can not be determined 
until after regulatory approaches have been proposed. Preliminary cost 
and benefit information will be provided when the rule is officially 
proposed.


Risks:


The risks from emissions contributing to GHG's and their impact on 
public health and welfare are being evaluated and will be discussed as 
the endangerment finding process proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07
Final Action                    10/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5164;


Agency Contact:
Paul Argyropoulos
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6401A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1123
Email: [email protected]

Robin Moran
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 734 214-4781
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AO56

[[Page 69935]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



137. TEST RULE; TESTING OF CERTAIN HIGH PRODUCTION VOLUME (HPV) 
CHEMICALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 790 to 799


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is issuing test rules under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) to require testing and recordkeeping requirements 
for certain high production volume (HPV) chemicals (i.e., chemicals 
which are manufactured (including imported) in the aggregate at more 
than 1 million pounds on an annual basis) that have not been sponsored 
under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program. Although varied based on 
specific data needs for the particular chemical, the data generally 
collected under these rules may include: acute toxicity, repeat dose 
toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, mutagenicity, 
ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. The first rule proposed testing 
for 37 HPV chemicals with substantial worker exposure. When finalized 
on March 16, 2006, the number of chemicals included in the first final 
rule was reduced to 17 based on new information on annual production 
volumes, worker exposure, and commitments to the voluntary HPV 
Challenge Program. Subsequent test rules, including a proposed rule 
scheduled to be published in spring of 2008 are expected to require 
similar screening level testing for additional unsponsored HPV 
Challenge Program chemicals.


Statement of Need:


Prior to inception of the HPV Challenge Program, in 1998, EPA found 
that, of those non-polymeric organic substances produced or imported in 
amounts equal to or greater than 1 million pounds per year based on 
1990 reporting for EPA's Inventory Update Rule (IUR), only 7 percent 
had a full set of publicly available internationally recognized basic 
health and environmental fate/effects screening test data. Of the over 
2,800 HPV chemicals based on 1990 data, 43% had no publicly available 
basic hazard data. For the remaining chemicals, limited amounts of the 
data were available. This lack of available hazard data compromised the 
ability of EPA and others to determine whether these HPV chemicals pose 
potential risks to human health or the environment, as well as the 
public's right-to-know about the hazards of chemicals that are found in 
their environment, their homes, their workplaces, and the products that 
they buy. On April 21, 1998, a national initiative, known as the 
Chemical Right-To-Know (ChemRTK) Initiative, was announced by EPA. This 
Initiative is designed to collect and, where needed, develop the basic 
screening level toxicity and fate data that are necessary to provide 
the information needed to assess the potential hazards/risks that may 
be posed by exposure to HPV chemicals. A primary component of the 
ChemRTK Initiative is the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, which was 
created in cooperation with industry, environmental groups, and other 
interested parties, and is designed to assemble basic screening level 
test data on the potential hazards and fate of HPV chemicals. Since the 
inception of the HPV Challenge Program in 1998, industry chemical 
manufacturers and importers have participated in the Challenge Program 
by sponsoring 2,250 chemicals with sponsorship by more that 350 
companies and 100 consortia. EPA is in the process of developing hazard 
characterizations based on the data received to date under the 
Challenge Program. Data needs which remain unmet in either the 
voluntary HPV Challenge Program or through complementary international 
efforts (i.e., the OECD SIDS HPV Program and the International Council 
of Chemical Associations) may be addressed through rulemaking under 
TSCA section 4.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These test rules would be issued under section 4(a)(1)(B) of TSCA. 
Section 2(b)(1) of TSCA states that it is the policy of the United 
States that ``adequate data should be developed with respect to the 
effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the 
environment and that the development of such data should be the 
responsibility of those who manufacture [which is defined by statute to 
include import] and those who process such chemical substances and 
mixtures[.]'' To implement this policy, TSCA section 4(a) mandates that 
EPA require by rule that manufacturers and processors of chemical 
substances and mixtures conduct testing if the Administrator finds 
that: (1)(A)(i) the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, 
use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any 
combination of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment, (ii) there are insufficient data 
and experience upon which the effects of such manufacture, distribution 
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture 
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment 
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such 
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to 
develop such data; or (B)(i) a chemical substance or mixture is or will 
be produced in substantial quantities, and (I) it enters or may 
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial 
quantities or (II) there is or may be significant or substantial human 
exposure to such substance or mixture, (ii) there are insufficient data 
and experience upon which the effects of the manufacture, distribution 
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture 
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment 
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such 
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to 
develop such data.


Alternatives:


The strategy and overall approach that EPA is using to address data 
collection needs for U.S. HPV chemicals includes a voluntary component 
(the HPV Challenge Program), certain international efforts, and these 
rulemakings under TSCA. The issuance of a rulemaking is often the 
Agency's final mechanism for obtaining this important information.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The potential benefits of these test rules are substantial. For those 
chemical substances included in these rules, EPA believes that there 
are insufficient data to reasonably determine or predict their effects 
on health or the environment. EPA believes that the internationally 
recognized basic health and environmental fate/effects screening 
testing that would be required in these rules would provide critical 
information needed to conduct screening level characterizations of the 
health and environmental hazards of these substances. This information, 
when combined with information about

[[Page 69936]]

exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and others to evaluate the 
potential health and environmental risks of these substances and to 
take appropriate follow up action. The cost of the baseline screening 
testing laboratory costs that would be imposed is estimated to be about 
$300,000 per chemical for a full set of tests. It is unlikely, however, 
for a chemical to need a full set of tests, which would only occur if 
none of the data in question already exists.


Risks:


Data collected and/or developed under these test rules, when combined 
with information about exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and 
others to evaluate and prioritize potential health and environmental 
effects and take appropriate follow up action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/26/00                    65 FR 81658
Final Action                    03/16/06                    71 FR 13709
Direct Final Action; 
    Revocation; Coke-Oven 
    Light Oil (Coal)            12/08/06                    71 FR 71058
NPRM2                           03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3990; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2000/December/Day-26/t32497.htm; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest

Agency Contact:
Paul Campanella
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8091
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: [email protected]

Greg Schweer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8469
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD16
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



138. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTIMICROBIALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136 to 136y


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 158 and 161


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA will update and revise its pesticide data requirements for 
antimicrobial pesticide products. The revisions will revise its 
existing data requirements to reflect current regulatory and scientific 
standards. The data requirements will cover all scientific disciplines 
for antimicrobial pesticides, including product chemistry and residue 
chemistry, toxicology, and environmental fate and effects.


Statement of Need:


The Agency is in the process of updating its data requirements for 
pesticides. Since the current data requirements were first published in 
1984, the information needed to support the registration of a pesticide 
has evolved along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide 
chemical technology. Over the years, revisions and updates to the data 
requirements have been applied on a case-by-case basis. In 2007, the 
Agency promulgated data requirements for conventional, and biochemical 
and microbial pesticide chemicals. As part of this action, the 1984 
data requirements were transferred intact to part 161 to provide 
continued regulatory coverage for antimicrobial pesticides until the 
Agency can promulgate a final regulation. This rule will update and 
revise the existing data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide 
products. These revisions build upon those previously proposed for 
conventional chemicals, but are tailored to the specific data needs of 
antimicrobial pesticides. The revisions will provide stakeholders with 
greater transparency and clarity to determine the data needed for an 
antimicrobial pesticide product without having extensive consultations 
with the Agency, more focused use patterns that reflect current 
practice, and a more efficient registration process. When the Agency 
promulgates the revised data requirements in part 158 subpart W, the 
current data requirements in part 161 will be removed.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y


Alternatives:


The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish 
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. The Agency re-
evaluates those data requirements in light of scientific advances, 
analytical improvements, and new technology, to provide a sound 
scientific basis for those decisions. On a case by case basis, the 
Agency considers whether alternative regulatory methods, such as 
restrictions on use, would obviate the need for data, and explores 
means of introducing flexibility and clarity to reduce burdens on the 
regulated community. For this rule, EPA will analyze keeping the 
current data requirements as specified in part 161, using the data 
requirements promulgated for conventional chemicals, and promulgating 
new data requirements specifically for antimicrobials.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency is conducting an economic analysis to support the rule. 
Anticipated benefits include less uncertainty and clearer understanding 
of the actual risk, increased clarity and transparency to the regulated 
community, improved scientific basis for pesticide regulatory 
decisions, and enhanced international harmonization with less 
duplication of data. The increased costs of the rule are estimated

[[Page 69937]]

as greater than $3 million /year for the 72 companies that hold 
registrations or have applied for a registration for an antimicrobial 
product.


Risks:


The revisions to the data requirements to be proposed, like the 
existing requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for 
pesticide registration to supply the Agency with information on the 
pesticide: composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, 
environmental properties and ecological effects, and, in certain cases, 
efficacy. This information is used to assess the human health and 
environmental risks associated with the product. The data that will be 
required by this regulation are the foundation of EPA's risk assessment 
for antimicrobial pesticides, and provide a sound scientific basis for 
any licensing decisions that impose requirements that mitigate or 
reduce risks. Under FIFRA, the applicant for registration must 
demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that the pesticide product 
will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects'' to humans or to the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4173


Sectors Affected:


32519 Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 32551 Paint and 
Coating Manufacturing; 32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical 
Manufacturing; 32561 Soap and Cleaning Compound Manufacturing


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm

Agency Contact:
Kathryn Boyle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6304
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: [email protected]

Jean Frane
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5944
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



139. PESTICIDES; COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR OCCUPATIONAL USERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136; 7 USC 136i; 7 USC 136w


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 171; 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 152


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The EPA is proposing change to federal regulations guiding the 
certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR 171). Change is sought 
to strengthen the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators 
and the public and the environment from harm due to pesticide exposure. 
Changes may include having certain occupational users of pesticides 
demonstrate competency by meeting minimum competency requirements. The 
need for change arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders. EPA 
has been in extensive discussions with stakeholders since 1997 when the 
Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) was established. 
CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic stakeholders to discuss 
the current state of, and the need for improvements in, the national 
certified pesticide applicator program. Throughout these extensive 
interactions with stakeholders, EPA has learned of the need for changes 
to the regulation.


Statement of Need:


The regulations governing the Federal and State certification of 
pesticide applicators, 40 CFR part 171, were originally promulgated in 
1974. Since that time State certification programs have gone beyond the 
Federal regulations in a number of areas. The need for change arose 
from EPA discussions with key stakeholders. EPA has been in extensive 
discussions with stakeholders since 1997 when the Certification and 
Training Assessment Group (CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used 
by regulatory and academic stakeholders to discuss the current state 
of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide 
applicator program. Throughout these extensive interactions with 
stakeholders, EPA has learned of the need for changes to the 
regulation. Stakeholders identified the need for a minimum standard of 
competency for all occupational users of pesticides as well as the 
establishment of standards for determination of applicator competency 
and continued competency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136w


Alternatives:


EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon 
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this 
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not yet been fully identified 
and evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.


Risks:


The proposed regulation would require that certain occupational users 
of pesticides meet minimum competency standards and require additional 
competency determinations of those who use the most toxic pesticides in 
a manner that could result in significant exposure to the public. These 
changes would strengthen the regulations that protect pesticide 
applicators and the public from potential harm due to pesticide 
exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 69938]]

Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5007


Agency Contact:
Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: [email protected]

Richard Pont
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6448
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ20
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



140. PESTICIDES; AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136; 7 USC 136w


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 170


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The EPA is developing a proposal to revise the federal regulations 
guiding agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 170). The changes under 
consideration are intended to improve agricultural workers' ability to 
protect themselves from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide 
residues. In addition, EPA is proposing to make adjustments to improve 
and clarify current requirements and facilitate enforcement. Other 
changes sought are to establish a right-to-know Hazard Communication 
program and make improvements to pesticide safety training, with 
improved worker safety the intended outcome. The need for change arose 
from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996 and 
continuing through 2004. EPA held nine public meetings throughout the 
country during which the public submitted written and verbal comments 
on issues of their concern. In 2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings 
where invited stakeholders identified their issues and concerns with 
the regulations.


Statement of Need:


The regulations governing the protection of agricultural workers, 40 
CFR part 170, were promulgated in 1992. Since that time, stakeholders 
provided input on areas to improve the regulation, particularly to 
better protect agricultural field workers and handlers from pesticide 
risks. The need for change arose from EPA discussions with key 
stakeholders beginning in 1996 and continuing through 2004. EPA held 
nine public meetings throughout the country during which the public 
submitted written and verbal comments on issues of their concern. In 
2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings where invited stakeholders 
identified their issues and concerns with the regulations. Stakeholders 
identified the need for a minimum standard of competency for all 
occupational users of pesticides as well as the establishment of 
standards for determination of applicator competency and continued 
competency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136w


Alternatives:


EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon 
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this 
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not been fully identified and 
evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.


Risks:


This proposal would reduce the risks to agricultural workers from 
potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5006


Agency Contact:
Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: [email protected]

Richard Pont
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6448
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ22
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



141. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT-INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS 
(PIPS)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136a; 7 USC 136w


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 158 and 174


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA intends to propose codifying data requirements for the pesticide 
registration of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). These data 
requirements are intended to provide EPA with data and other 
information necessary for the registration of PIPs. These requirements 
would improve the Agency's ability to make regulatory decisions about 
the human health and environmental effects of these products. By 
codifying data requirements specific to PIPs, the regulated community 
would have a better understanding of and could better prepare for the 
registration process. This proposed rule

[[Page 69939]]

is one in a series of proposals to update and clarify pesticide data 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


There are currently no separate data requirements for plant-
incorporated protectants (PIPs), a new type of pesticide first 
registered in the mid-1990s. Instead, the Agency has relied on the 
microbial pesticide data requirements tailored on a case-by-case basis. 
The information needed to support the registration of a PIP has evolved 
along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide chemical 
technology. When established, these data requirements will reflect 
current scientific knowledge and understanding. Establishing these data 
requirements will provide stakeholders with greater transparency and 
clarity to determine the data needed for PIP pesticide product without 
having extensive consultations with the Agency and a more efficient 
registration process. Further, establishing these data requirements 
will improve the Agency's ability to make regulatory decisions about 
human health and environmental effects of PIP pesticides to better 
protect wildlife, the environment and people.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The final rule will describe data and information needed to support 
multiple pesticide mandates under two statutes: the registration, 
reregistration, registration review, and experimental use permit 
programs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA), and the tolerance-setting and reassessment program under the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These programs are 
authorized under FIFRA sections 3, 4, and 5 and FFDCA sec 408.


Alternatives:


The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish 
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. On a case-by-
case basis, the Agency considers whether alternative regulatory methods 
would obviate the need for data and explores the means of introducing 
flexibility and clarity to reduce burdens on the regulated community. 
For this rule, EPA will analyze several scenarios including 
establishing data requirements tailored specifically to PIP pesticides, 
not establishing any data requirements, and remaining status quo with 
relying on the microbial pesticide data requirements tailored on a 
case-by-case basis.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency is conducting an economic analysis to support this rule. 
Anticipated benefits include greater certainty and clearer 
understanding of the actual risk, increased clarity and transparency to 
the regulated community, improved scientific basis for pesticide 
regulatory decisions, and enhanced international harmonization with 
less duplication of data. However, since this rulemaking is currently 
under Agency workgroup discussion, the specific costs and benefits of 
the action have not yet been determined. The Agency expects this rule 
to result in decreased illness and death resulting from pesticide 
exposure.


Risks:


The proposed revisions to the data requirements, like the existing 
requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for pesticide 
registration to supply the Agency with information on the pesticide: 
Composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, environmental 
properties, and ecological effects. This information is used to assess 
the human health and environmental risks associated with the product. 
The data that will be required by this regulation form the foundation 
of EPA's risk assessment for pesticides, and provide a sound scientific 
basis for any licensing decisions that impose requirements that 
mitigate or reduce risks, and that ensure that pesticide resides in 
food meet the ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' risk standard of the 
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5005


Agency Contact:
Kristen Brush
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-0308
Email: [email protected]

William Schneider
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7511P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8683
Fax: 703 308-7026
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ27
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



142. REVISIONS TO THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE 
(SPCC) RULE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1321


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 112


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA will propose to amend 40 CFR part 112, which includes the Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule promulgated under 
the authority of the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule may address a 
variety of issues associated with the July 2002 SPCC final rule.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule is necessary to clarify the regulatory obligations of 
SPCC facility owners and operators and to reduce the regulatory burden 
where appropriate.


Summary of Legal Basis:


33 USC 1321 et seq.


Alternatives:


EPA considered alternative options for various aspects of this proposed 
rule, following receipt of public comments, and through logical 
outgrowth of previously considered alternatives.

[[Page 69940]]

Alternative options included (1) exempting asphalt cement containers 
from the requirements of the SPCC rule; (2) exempting farms of a 
certain storage capacity, where the exact storage capacity has not been 
specified; (3) providing an exemption only for residential heating oil 
containers located at farms; (4) providing the same relief as in the 
preferred option to owners and operators of qualified facilities with 
total oil storage capacities of 5,000 gallons or less; (5) giving the 
option wherein owners and operators of new production facilities would 
be allowed one year after the start of operations to prepare and 
implement an SPCC Plan; (6) allowing the facilities to choose between a 
flowline maintenance program with a contingency plan (as in the 
proposed amendments) and providing a method of secondary containment 
for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines; (7) regulatory 
alternatives for oil production facilities that have wells that produce 
10 barrels or less of crude oil per day and are known as ``stripper 
wells.''


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


At the 7 percent discount rate, the proposed amendments to the SPCC 
rule are expected to yield annualized cost savings of approximately $7 
million from the proposed exemption of hot-mix asphalt containers, $4 
million from the proposed changes for exempting pesticide application 
equipment, $2 million from the proposed exemption of residential 
heating oil containers, $251 million from the proposed amendments to 
the definition of facility, $1 million from the proposed clarification 
to the facility diagram requirements, $48 million from the proposed 
revision to the loading rack definition, $24 million from the 
streamlined requirements for Tier 1 qualified facilities, $7 million 
from the proposed amendments to the security requirements, $9 million 
from the amendments to integrity testing requirements, $2 million for 
owners and operators of AFVO facilities, $25 million for owners and 
operators of production facilities from the six-month delay in SPCC 
Plan preparation and implementation, and $8 million from exemption of 
flow-through process vessels from sized secondary containment. 
Additional benefits of this rule were not quantified because the impact 
of the rule on human health and environment are expected to be 
marginal. The principal effect of the proposed amendments would be 
lower compliance costs for owners and operators of certain types of 
facilities and equipment.


Risks:


In the absence of quantitative information on the change in risk 
related to the specific proposed amendments, EPA conducted a 
qualitative assessment, which suggests that the proposed amendments 
will not lead to a significant increase in oil discharge risk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice Clarifying Certain 
    Issues                      05/25/04                    69 FR 29728
NPRM 1 yr Compliance 
    Extension                   06/17/04                    69 FR 34014
Final 18 months 
    Compliance Extension        08/11/04                    69 FR 48794
NODA re certain 
    facilities                  09/20/04                    69 FR 56184
NODA re oil-filled and 
    process equipment           09/20/04                    69 FR 56182
NPRM                            10/15/07                    72 FR 58377
NPRM Comment Period End         12/14/07
Final Action                    10/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2634.2; Split from RIN 2050-AC62.


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/oilspill/spcc.htm

Agency Contact:
Hugo Fleischman
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1968
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG16
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



143. REVISIONS TO LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TREATMENT STANDARDS AND 
AMENDMENTS TO RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPENT PETROLEUM REFINING 
HYDROTREATING AND HYDROREFINING CATALYSTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1006; 42 USC 2002(a); 42 USC 3001 to 3009; 42 USC 3014; 42 USC 
6905; 42 USC 6906; 42 CFR 6912; 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 USC 6924 
to 6927; 42 USC 6934; 42 USC 6937; 42 USC 6938


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Pursuant to regulations found at 40 CFR 260.20, the Vanadium Producers 
and Reclaimers Association (VPRA) submitted a rulemaking petition to 
the EPA requesting that the Agency amend the hazardous waste 
regulations affecting the treatment and disposal of certain petroleum 
refinery process wastes. Specifically, VPRA requested that EPA revise 
the treatment standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) 
Program for the disposal of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining 
catalysts (waste codes K171 and K172, respectively). EPA is publishing 
a notice in response to the rulemaking petition, by proposing to amend 
the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) requirements for EPA Waste Code 
K172 by adding numeric treatment standards for certain polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). EPA is also responding to other elements 
of the rulemaking petition in this notice. Finally, in response to 
separate comments received from petroleum industry representatives, EPA 
is taking this opportunity to propose changes to its regulations to 
help encourage consistent levels of recycling of spent hydrotreating 
and hydrorefining catalysts, in a manner that protects human health and 
the environment.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of this proposed rule, as described in the abstract, is to 
respond to a rulemaking petition. EPA believes that the petitioners 
have made suitably credible arguments that the existing requirements 
for treating and disposing

[[Page 69941]]

of certain refinery wastes may need adjusting, thus this proposal. In 
addition, regarding the recycling part of this action (again, described 
in the abstract above) EPA determined that exploring ways to encourage 
the recycling of these spent catalysts safely has merit.


Summary of Legal Basis:


There is no court order requiring this action.


Alternatives:


EPA decided that the alternative of not proposing this rule was not the 
option of choice. See Statement of Need. Further evaluation of 
alternatives may occur during the development of this action; currently 
in the early stages of development.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


No formal cost/benefit analysis has been performed to date.


Risks:


This rule is responding to a petition that alleges EPA's current rules 
do not adequately address the risk to human health and the environment 
associated with the disposal of spent refinery catalysts. EPA is 
currently trying to better understand the risk issues. At this time, 
this is undetermined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Data 
    Availability                10/20/03                    68 FR 59935
NPRM                            06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5070; EPA publication information: Notice of Data Availability 
- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2003/November/Day-24/
f29319.htm; ; EPA Docket information: Legacy Docket No. RCRA-2003-0023 
for 10/20/03 NODA


Agency Contact:
Ross Elliott
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8748
Fax: 703 308-7903
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG34
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



144.  NPDES VESSEL VACATUR

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is necessary because EPA must address a District Court 
ruling (currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 
Circuit) which vacates a regulatory exemption at 40 CFR 122.3(a). 
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (ND CA, C 03-5760 SI). The regulation excludes discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES permitting 
and has existed, essentially unchanged, since 1973. Unless overruled on 
appeal, the Court's September 2006 ruling will vacate the entire 
exclusion as of September 30, 2008. As of September 30, 2008, 
discharges of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of a vessel 
that had formerly been exempted from NPDES permitting by the regulation 
will be subject to prohibitions in CWA Sec.  301(a) against the 
discharge of a pollutant without a permit.


Statement of Need:


This action is necessary because EPA needs to address a District Court 
ruling (currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 
Circuit) which vacates a regulatory exemption at 40 CFR 122.3(a). 
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (ND CA, C 03-5760 SI). The existing regulation excludes 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES 
permitting and has been on the books, essentially unchanged, since 
1973. The Court's September 2006 ruling will vacate the entire 
exclusion as of September 30, 2008.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis is the Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et seq.


Alternatives:


Unknown.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Unknown.


Risks:


Unknown.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposal                        01/00/08
Final                              To Be                     Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5162;


Agency Contact:
Ruby Cooper
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0757
Fax: 202 564-9544
Email: [email protected]

John Lishman
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4504T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1364
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE93

[[Page 69942]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




145. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NONATTAINMENT 
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR): DEBOTTLENECKING, AGGREGATION AND PROJECT 
NETTING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51.165; 40 CFR 51.166; 40 CFR 52.21


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project will revise rules governing the major new source review 
(NSR) programs mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). The new regulations will clarify and codify our policy of 
when multiple activities at a single major stationary source must be 
considered together for the purposes of determining major NSR 
applicability (``aggregation''). Also, we are changing the way 
emissions from permitted emissions units upstream or downstream from 
those undergoing a physical change or change in the method of operation 
are considered when determining if a proposed project will result in a 
significant emissions increase (``debottlenecking''). Finally, we are 
clarifying how emissions decreases from a project may be included in 
the calculation to determine if a significant emissions increase will 
result from a project (``project netting''). When final, these rules 
will improve implementation of the program by articulating and 
codifying principles for determining major NSR applicability that we 
currently address through guidance only. These rule changes reflect the 
EPA's consideration of the EPA's 2002 Report to the President and its 
associated recommendations as well as discussions with various 
stakeholders including representatives of environmental groups, State 
and local governments, and industry.


Statement of Need:


The current New Source Review program provides for emissions from 
multiple projects to be aggregated (aggregation) as one single project 
under certain circumstances. Similarly, when making a PSD applicability 
calculation, emissions from units whose effective capacity and 
potential to emit have been increased as a result of a modification to 
another unit (debottlenecked units), must be included in the initial 
PSD applicability calculations. Specific questions regarding the 
application of these two terms have been addressed on a case-by-case 
basis. By completing this rulemaking, regulated entities and regulatory 
agencies will be provided an additional level of certainty in 
addressing applicability issues.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7411(a)(4)


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We are not able to provide quantitative estimates of the costs and 
benefits of this rule because of our inability to specifically identify 
the quantity, types, and locations of sources that will utilize this 
rulemaking in the future, and the difficulty in specifically 
quantifying the difference in environmental outcomes that would result 
with and without the rule. Qualitatively, our analysis indicates that 
we do not expect this rule to add to the costs of the program, nor do 
we expect that the environmental benefits of the program would 
significantly change as a result of this rulemaking.


Risks:


Risk information cannot be developed for this rule for the same reasons 
mentioned above regarding costs and benefits.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/14/06                    71 FR 54235
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4793; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/September/Day-14/a15248.htm;


Agency Contact:
Dave Svendsgaard
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2380
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]

Lisa Sutton
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3450
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AL75
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



146. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW LOCOMOTIVES AND NEW MARINE DIESEL 
ENGINES LESS THAN 30 LITERS PER CYLINDER

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7522 to 7621


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 92; 40 CFR 94


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Locomotives and marine diesel engines are important contributors to our 
nation's air pollution today accounting for about 20 percent of mobile 
source nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and about 25 percent of mobile 
source fine diesel particulate matter (PM 2.5) emissions. EPA is 
proposing a comprehensive program to significantly reduce emissions 
from locomotives and marine diesel engines. It would apply new exhaust 
emission standards and idle reduction requirements to diesel 
locomotives of all types--line-haul, switch, and passenger. It would 
also set new exhaust emission standards for all types of marine diesel 
engines below 30 liters per cylinder displacement. These include marine 
propulsion engines used on vessels from recreational and small fishing 
boats to super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes freighters, and marine 
auxiliary engines

[[Page 69943]]

ranging from small gensets to large generators on ocean-going vessels. 
We estimate PM reductions of 90 percent and NOx reductions of 80 
percent from engines meeting these standards, compared to engines 
meeting the current standards. EPA has already taken steps to bring 
emissions levels from light-duty and heavy-duty highway, and nonroad 
diesel vehicles and engines to very low levels over the next decade, 
while the emission levels for locomotive and marine diesel engines 
remain at much higher levels--comparable to the emissions for highway 
trucks in the early 1990s. The additional PM2.5 and NOx emission 
reductions resulting from the proposed standards would assist states in 
attaining and maintaining the Ozone and the PM2.5 National Air Quality 
Standards both near term and in the decades to come. The proposed 
program includes a set of near-term emission standards for newly-built 
engines. These would phase in starting in 2009. The near-term program 
also contains more stringent emissions standards for existing 
locomotives. These would apply when the locomotive is remanufactured 
and would take effect as soon as certified remanufacture systems are 
available (as early as 2008), but no later than 2010 (2013 for Tier 2 
locomotives). We are requesting comment on an alternative under 
consideration that would apply a similar remanufacture requirement to 
existing marine diesel engines installed in vessels currently in the 
fleet. We are also proposing long-term emissions standards for newly-
built locomotives and marine diesel engines based on the application of 
high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology. These standards 
would phase in beginning in 2015 for locomotives and 2014 for marine 
diesel engines. Finally, are proposing revised testing, certification, 
and compliance provisions to better ensure emissions control in use. 
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which 
manufacture, remanufacture and/or import locomotives and/or locomotive 
engines; and those which own and operate locomotives. This proposed 
action would also affect companies and persons that manufacture, sell, 
or import into the United States new marine compression-ignition 
engines, companies and persons that rebuild or maintain these engines, 
companies and persons that make vessels that use such engines, and the 
owners/operators of such vessels.


Statement of Need:


Locomotive and marine diesel engines generate significant emissions of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that 
contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for PM2.5 and ozone. NOx is a key precursor to ozone and 
secondary PM formation. These engines also emit hazardous air 
pollutants or air toxics, which are associated with serious adverse 
health effects. Emissions from locomotive and marine diesel engines 
also cause harm to public welfare, including contributing to visibility 
impairment and other harmful environmental impacts across the US. (The 
health and welfare impacts of these pollutants are described elsewhere 
in this Regulatory Agenda.) Emissions from locomotive and marine diesel 
engines account for substantial portions of the country's ambient PM2.5 
and NOx levels. Today these engines account for about 20 percent of 
mobile source NOx emissions and about 25 percent of mobile source 
diesel PM 2.5 emissions. Under the standards EPA has proposed, by 2030 
annual NOx emissions from these diesel engines would be reduced by 
765,000 tons and PM2.5 emissions by 28,000 tons, and those reductions 
would continue to grow beyond 2030 as the fleet turnover to the clean 
engines is completed. State and local governments are working to 
protect the health of their citizens and comply with requirements of 
the Clean Air Act. As part of this effort they recognize the need to 
secure additional major reductions in both diesel PM2.5 and NOx 
emissions by undertaking numerous state level actions, while also 
seeking Agency action, including the setting of stringent new 
locomotive and marine diesel engine standards. The emission reductions 
in this proposal will play a critical part in state efforts to attain 
and maintain the National Air Quality Standards both near term and 
through the next two decades.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Authority for the actions in this proposed rule is granted to the 
Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) by sections 114, 203, 205, 206, 
207, 208, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. 
EPA is proposing emissions standards for new marine diesel engines 
pursuant to its authority under section 213(a)(3) and (4) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) and for new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives pursuant to its authority under section 213(a)(5) of the 
CAA. CAA section 213(a)(3) directs the Administrator to set NOx, VOCs, 
or carbon monoxide standards for classes or categories of engines that 
contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in more than one 
nonattainment area, such as marine diesel engines. CAA section 
213(a)(4), authorizes the Administrator to establish standards to 
control emissions of pollutants which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health and welfare, where the Administrator determines, 
as it has done for emissions of PM, that nonroad engines as a whole 
contribute significantly to such air pollution. Finally, section 
213(a)(5) directs EPA to adopt emission standards for new locomotives 
and new engines used in locomotives that achieve the greatest degree of 
emissions reductions achievable through the use of technology that the 
Administrator determines will be available for such vehicles and 
engines, taking into account the cost of applying such technology 
within the available time period, the noise, energy, and safety factors 
associated with the applications of such technology.


Alternatives:


We have developed emission inventory impacts, cost estimates and 
benefit estimates for two types of alternatives. The first type looks 
at the impacts of varying the timing and scope of our proposed 
standards. The second considers a programmatic alternative that would 
set emission standards for existing marine diesel engines. Alternative 
1 examines the potential impacts of the locomotive remanufacturing 
program by excluding it from the analysis. Alternative 2 considers the 
possibility of pulling ahead the Tier 4 standards by one year for both 
the locomotive and marine programs, while leaving the rest of the 
proposed program unchanged. This alternative represents a more 
environmentally protective set of standards. However, our review of the 
technical challenges to introduce the Tier 4 program, especially 
considering the locomotive remanufacturing program and the Tier 3 
standards which go before it, leads us to conclude that introducing 
Tier 4 a year earlier is not feasible. Alternative 3 most closely 
reflects the program we described in our Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, whereby we would set new aftertreatment based emission 
standards as soon as possible. In this case, alternative 3 eliminates 
our proposed Tier 3 standards and locomotive remanufacturing standards, 
while pulling the Tier 4 standards

[[Page 69944]]

ahead to 2013 (3 months after the introduction of 15 ppm ULSD). As with 
alternative 2, we are concerned that it may not be feasible to 
introduce Tier 4 technologies on locomotive and marine diesel engines 
earlier than the proposal specifies. Alternative 4 would eliminate the 
Tier 4 standards and retain the Tier 3 and locomotive remanufacturing 
requirements. This alternative allows us to consider the value of 
combining the Tier 3 and locomotive remanufacturing standards together 
as one program, and conversely, allows us to see the additional 
benefits gained when combining them with the Tier 4 standards. This 
alternative falls well short of the total benefits that our 
comprehensive program is expected to realize. Alternative 5 would 
establish a two-part marine engines remanufacturing program to reduce 
emissions from marine diesel engines above 800hp installed on 
commercial vessels. These engines remain in the fleet in excess of 20 
years and can substantially contribute to air pollution. In part one, 
beginning as early as 2008, vessel owners and rebuilders (also called 
remanufacturers) would be required to use a certified kit when the 
engine is rebuilt (or remanufactured) if such a kit is available. In 
the second part, which could begin in 2013, the marine diesel engine 
identified by the EPA as a high-sales volume engine model would have to 
meet specified emission requirements when the engine is remanufactured. 
If no certified system were available, companies subject to these 
provisions would need to either retrofit an emission reduction 
technology for the engine that demonstrates at least a 25 percent 
reduction or repower (replace the engine with a new one). The second 
part of the program is contingent on EPA developing a list of high 
volume marine diesel engines for which a remanufacture certificate must 
be available by 2013. Finally, the second step of the program could be 
made subject to a technical review in 2011A summary of the five 
alternatives is contained in Tables VII-1 and VII-2 of the proposed 
rule. Table VII-1 includes the expected PM and NOx emission reductions, 
associated with each alternative through 2040 expressed as a net 
present value (NPV) using discounting rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. 
It also includes the estimated costs for each alternative through 2040 
expressed at 3 percent NPV and 7 percent NPV. Table VI-2 shows the PM 
and NOx inventory reductions, costs, and benefits of each alternative 
estimated for the year 2030.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The total monetized benefits of the proposed standards, when based on 
published scientific studies of the risk of PM-related premature 
mortality, these benefits are projected to be more than $12 billion in 
2030, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or $11 billion assuming a 7 
percent discount rate). Our estimate of total monetized benefits based 
on the PM-related premature mortality expert elicitation is between 
$4.6 billion and $33 billion in 2030, assuming a 3 percent discount 
rate (or $4.3 and $30 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The 
social costs of the proposed program are estimated to be approximately 
$600 million in 2030. The estimated 2030 social welfare cost of 567.3 
million is based on an earlier version of the engineering costs of the 
rule which estimated $568.3 million engineering costs in 2030 (see 
table V-15). The current engineering cost estimate for 2030 is $605 
million. See section V.C.5 for an explanation of the difference. The 
estimated social costs of the program will be updated for the final 
rule. The impact of these costs on society are estimated to be minimal, 
with the prices of rail and marine transportation services estimated to 
increase by less about 0.4 percent for locomotive transportation 
services and about 0.6 percent for marine transportation services. 
Though there are a number of health and environmental effects 
associated with the proposed standards that we are unable to quantify 
or monetize, the benefits of the proposed standards far outweigh the 
projected costs.


Risks:


The emissions of PM and ozone precursors from locomotive and marine 
diesel engines are associated with serious public health problems 
including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute 
respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. 
In addition, emissions from locomotives and marine diesel engines are 
of particular concern, as diesel exhaust has been classified by EPA as 
a likely human carcinogen. Many people spend a large portion of time in 
or near areas of concentrated locomotive or marine diesel emissions, 
near rail yards, marine ports, railways, and waterways. Recent studies 
show that populations living near large diesel emission sources such as 
major roadways, rail yards and marine ports are likely to experience 
greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall US population, 
putting them at a greater health risk. Scientific studies show ambient 
PM is associated with a series of adverse health effects. The 
locomotive and marine diesel engines, covered in this proposal 
contribute to both short-and long-term PM2.5 exposures. Health effects 
associated with short-term exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM 
include premature mortality, increased hospital admissions, heart and 
lung diseases, increased cough, adverse lower-respiratory symptoms, 
decrements in lung function and changes in heart rate rhythm and other 
cardiac effects. Studies examining populations exposed to different 
levels of air pollution over a number of years show associations 
between long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both total and cardio 
respiratory mortality. Locomotive and marine diesel engines also result 
in significant emissions of NOx and VOC emissions which contribute to 
the formation of ground-level ozone pollution or smog. People in many 
areas across the U.S. continue to be exposed to unhealthy levels of 
ambient ozone. The health and welfare effects of ozone are well 
documented and are assessed in EPA's 2006 ozone Air Quality Criteria 
Document (ozone AQCD) and EPA staff papers. Ozone can irritate the 
respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/or 
uncomfortable sensation in the chest. Ozone can reduce lung function 
and make it more difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may become 
more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's 
activity. Ozone can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma 
attacks that require a doctor's attention and/or the use of additional 
medication. People who are more susceptible to effects associated with 
exposure to ozone include children, the elderly, and individuals with 
respiratory disease such as asthma. locomotive and marine diesel engine 
emissions include diesel exhaust (DE), a complex mixture comprised of 
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide, 
nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight 
hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are 
individually known to be toxic including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-
butadiene. Locomotive and marine diesel engine exhaust emissions 
contribute to ambient levels of other air toxics known or suspected as 
human

[[Page 69945]]

or animal carcinogens, or that have non-cancer health effects. These 
other compounds include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and 
naphthalene. All of these compounds, except acetaldehyde, were 
identified as national or regional risk drivers in the 1999 National-
Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) and have significant inventory 
contributions from mobile sources. That is, for a significant portion 
of the population, these compounds pose a significant portion of the 
total cancer and non-cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics. The 
reductions in locomotive and marine diesel engine emissions proposed in 
this rulemaking would help reduce exposure to these harmful substances.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/29/04                    69 FR 39276
NPRM                            04/03/07                    72 FR 15938
Final Action                    03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4871;


Agency Contact:
Jean--Marie Revelt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAR/OTAQ/ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4822
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AM06
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



147. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AND 
EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7521 to 7601(a)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 90; 40 CFR 91


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, December 1, 2004.


Final, Statutory, December 31, 2005.


Abstract:


We are setting emission standards for new nonroad spark-ignition 
engines that will substantially reduce emissions from these engines. 
The proposed exhaust emission standards would apply starting in 2009 
for new marine spark-ignition engines, including first-time EPA 
standards for sterndrive and inboard engines. The proposed exhaust 
emission standards would apply starting in 2011 and 2012 for different 
sizes of new land-based, spark-ignition engines at or below 19 
kilowatts (kW), which is equivalent to about 25 horsepower. These small 
engines are used primarily in lawn and garden applications. We are also 
proposing to adopt evaporative emission standards for vessels and 
equipment using any of these engines. Nationwide, these emission 
sources contribute to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate 
matter (PM) nonattainment.


We estimate that by 2030, this proposed rule would result in 
significantly reduced pollutant emissions from regulated engine and 
equipment sources, including estimated annual nationwide reductions of 
631,000 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbon emissions, 98,200 tons of 
NOx emissions, and 6,300 tons of direct particulate matter (PM2.5) 
emissions. These reductions correspond to significant reductions in the 
formation of ground-level ozone. We would also expect to see annual 
reductions of 2,690,000 tons of carbon monoxide emissions, with the 
greatest reductions in areas where there have been problems with 
individual exposures. The requirements in this rule will substantially 
benefit public health and welfare and the environment. We estimate that 
by 2030, the proposal's emission reductions would annually prevent 450 
PM-related premature deaths, approximately 500 hospitalizations, and 
52,000 work days lost. The total estimated annual benefits of the 
proposed rule in 2030 would be $3.4 billion. Estimated costs in 2030 
would be many times less at $240 million.


Statement of Need:


Nationwide, emissions from Marine SI engines and Small SI engines 
contribute significantly to mobile source air pollution. By 2020 
without this final rule these engines would account for about 27 
percent (1,352,000 tons) of mobile source volatile organic hydrocarbon 
compounds (VOC) emissions, 31 percent (16,374,000 tons) of mobile 
source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 4 percent (202,000 tons) of 
mobile source oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, and 16 percent 
(39,000 tons) of mobile source particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. 
The new standards will reduce exposure to these emissions and help 
avoid a range of adverse health effects associated with ambient ozone, 
CO, and PM levels. In addition, the new standards will help reduce 
acute exposure to CO, air toxics, and PM for persons who operate or who 
work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these engines. 
They will also help address other environmental problems associated 
with Marine SI engines and Small SI engines, such as visibility 
impairment in our national parks and other wilderness areas. These 
effects are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this 
Preamble.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs EPA to study emissions from 
nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether 
these emissions ``cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare.'' Section 213(a)(2) further requires us to determine whether 
emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx from all nonroad engines significantly 
contribute to ozone or CO concentrations in more than one nonattainment 
area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad engines do 
contribute significantly to these nonattainment areas, section 213(a) 
(3) then requires us to establish emission standards for classes or 
categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that cause or contribute 
to such pollution. Specific statutory direction to set standards for 
nonroad spark-ignition engines comes from section 428(b) of the 2004 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which requires EPA to adopt 
regulations under the Clean Air Act ``that shall contain standards to 
reduce emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 
50 horsepower.``


Alternatives:


For Small spark-ignition engines, we considered what is achievable with 
catalyst technology. Our technology assessment work indicated that the 
proposed emission standards are feasible in the context of provisions 
for establishing emission standards prescribed in section 213 of the 
Clean Air Act. We also considered what can

[[Page 69946]]

be achieved with larger, more efficient catalysts and improved fuel 
induction systems. Based on this work we evaluated more stringent 
HC+NOx standards involving a 50 percent reduction for Class I engines 
and a 65-70 percent reduction for Class II engines.


For Marine SI engines, we considered a more stringent exhaust emission 
standard for outboard and personal watercraft engines. This second tier 
of standards could apply starting in 2012 or later. Such a standard 
would be consistent with currently certified emission levels from a 
significant number of four-stroke outboard engines.


We considered both more and less stringent evaporative emission control 
alternatives. For small equipment, we considered a less stringent 
alternative without running loss emission standards. However, we 
believe that controlling running loss and diffusion emissions from non-
handheld equipment is feasible at a relatively low cost. For a more 
stringent alternative, we considered applying a diurnal emission 
standard for all small equipment. We believe that passively purging 
carbon canisters could reduce diurnal emissions by 50 to 60 percent 
from small equipment. For marine vessels, we considered a less 
stringent alternative, where there would be no diurnal emission 
standard for vessels with installed fuel tanks. For a more stringent 
scenario, we considered a standard that would require boat builders to 
use an actively purged carbon canister. This means that, when the 
engine is operating, it would draw air through the canister to purge 
the canister of stored hydrocarbons.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The requirements in this proposed rule would substantially benefit 
public health and welfare and the environment. We estimate that by 
2030, these proposed emission reductions would annually prevent 450 PM-
related premature deaths, approximately 500 hospitalizations, and 
52,000 work days lost. The total estimated annual benefits of this 
proposed rule in 2030 would be about $3.4 billion. Estimated costs in 
2030 would be many times less at $240 million.


Risks:


The health benefits associated with this proposed rule are expressed in 
terms of avoided premature mortalities and other endpoints, and have 
been estimated based on scaling of detailed modeling results from EPA's 
Clean Air Nonroad Diesel regulation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/18/07                    72 FR 28098
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4882;


Agency Contact:
Glenn Passavant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
2000 Traverwood Dr.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4408
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AM34
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



148. AMENDMENT OF THE STANDARDS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN YUCCA 
MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 102-486


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 197


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will amend the standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada (40 CFR 
Part 197). These standards were issued in 2001 and were partially 
remanded by a Federal court in 2004. These amendments will address the 
remanded portion of the standards, viz., the compliance period. Yucca 
Mountain is the site of a potential geologic repository for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It is about 100 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, and straddles the boundaries of the 
Nevada Test Site, Bureau of Land Management land, and an Air Force 
bombing range. The site is being developed by the Department of Energy 
(DOE). The DOE will submit a license application to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). We (EPA) were given the authority to set 
Yucca Mountain-specific standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(EnPA). The EnPA also requires NRC to adopt our standards in its 
licensing regulations and use them as a basis to judge compliance of 
the repository's performance. The Agency issued final Yucca Mountain 
standards in 2001. In July 2004, the DC Circuit Court returned the 
standards to EPA for reconsideration of the regulatory time frame. The 
Court found that the 10,000-year compliance period violates our 
authorizing statute for Yucca Mountain regulation because it is not 
``based upon and consistent with'' scientific recommendations required 
from the National Academy of Sciences under the legislation. To address 
the Court's opinion, we must reassess the time frame in light of the 
National Academy's recommendation that compliance must be addressed at 
the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several hundred thousand 
years into the future.


Statement of Need:


Congress selected Yucca Mountain as the Nation's only candidate site 
for a repository for nuclear spent fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires EPA to set Yucca-
Mountain-specific standards. Standards were promulgated in 2001. In 
July 2004, the DC Circuit Court returned the standards to EPA for 
reconsideration of the regulatory time frame.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires EPA to set Yucca-Mountain-
specific standards. Standards were promulgated in 2001. In July 2004, 
the DC Circuit Court returned the standards to EPA for reconsideration 
of the regulatory time frame.


Alternatives:


To address the Court's opinion, we must reassess the time frame in 
light of the National Academy's recommendation that compliance must be 
addressed at the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several 
hundred thousand years into the future. Alternatives addressing that 
recommendation will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.

[[Page 69947]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


An economic impact assessment (EIA) was performed for the proposed 
rulemaking. The EIA showed that many of the arguments and conclusions 
of the EIA for the original standards in 2001 are applicable to the 
proposed rule, which extends the compliance period from 10,000 years to 
as long as 1 million years. Specifically, the need to evaluate 
compliance with the individual protection standard is the same, the 
types of information needed to make those evaluations are the same, the 
performance assessment methodologies are the same, and the reasonable 
expectation approach to establishing the basis for the evaluations and 
compliance decisions is the same. Consequently, the proposed changes to 
the standards do not require additional efforts in site 
characterization, design, or assessment methodology development. 
Because DOE is not expected to make changes, undertake significant site 
characterization, or drastically revise its performance approach or 
models as a result of EPA's revisions to the 2001 rulemaking, there are 
no costs directly attributable to EPA's rulemaking.


Risks:


As a result of the standards extending to as long as an unprecedented 1 
million years, approaches for characterizing and expressing the risk 
are under consideration, and will be addressed in the final rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/22/05                    70 FR 49014
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4964; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-22/a16193.htm


Agency Contact:
Ray Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6608J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9198
Fax: 202 343-2065
Email: [email protected]

Raymond Lee
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6608J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9463
Fax: 202 343-2503
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN15
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



149. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, June 20, 2007, Consent decree.


Final, Judicial, March 12, 2008, Consent decree.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require EPA to review and, if 
necessary, revise national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
periodically. On July 18, 1997, the EPA published a final rule revising 
the NAAQS for ozone. The primary and secondary NAAQS were strengthened 
to provide increased protection against both health and environmental 
effects of ozone. The EPA's work plan/schedule for the next review of 
the ozone Criteria Document was published on November 2002. The first 
external review draft Criteria Document, a rigorous assessment of 
relevant scientific information, was released on January 31, 2005. The 
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards will prepare a Staff 
Paper for the Administrator, which will evaluate the policy 
implications of the key studies and scientific information contained in 
the Criteria Document and additional technical analyses, and identify 
critical elements that EPA staff believe should be considered in 
reviewing the standards. The Criteria Document was reviewed by CASAC 
and the public, changes were incorporated, and the final Criteria 
Document was released on March 21, 2006. The Staff Paper was released 
on January 31, 2007. As the ozone NAAQS review is completed, the 
Administrator's proposal to reaffirm or revise the ozone NAAQS will be 
published with a request for public comment. Input received during the 
public comment period will be considered in the Administrator's final 
decision.


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under 
section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards 
are established for the protection of public health, while 
``secondary'' standards are to protect against public welfare or 
ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) has been prepared that presents the 
costs and benefits associated with the proposed revised ozone standards 
and two other alternative standards This RIA was issued in late July, 
and the document is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.


Risks:


The current national ambient air quality standards for ozone are 
intended to protect against public health risks associated with 
morbidity and/or premature mortality and public welfare risks 
associated with adverse vegetation and ecosystem effects. During the 
course of this review, risk assessments will be conducted to evaluate 
health and welfare risks

[[Page 69948]]

associated with retention or revision of the ozone standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice                          12/29/05                    70 FR 77155
NPRM                            07/11/07                    72 FR 37818
Final Action                    03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5008; EPA publication information: Notice - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/December/Day-29/a24608.pdf;


Agency Contact:
Dave McKee
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5288
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: [email protected]

Karen Martin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5274
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN24
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



150. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW 
SOURCE REVIEW: EMISSION INCREASES FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act, title I, parts C and D and Section 111(a)(4)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 52


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise the emissions test for existing electric 
generating units (EGUs) that are subject to the regulations governing 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment 
major New Source Review (NSR) programs mandated by parts C and D of 
title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The existing emissions test 
compares actual emissions to either potential emissions or projected 
actual emissions. Under this rulemaking's revised NSR emissions test (a 
maximum hourly test like that used in the NSPS program), we would 
compare the EGU's maximum hourly emissions (considering controls) 
before the change for the past 5 years to the maximum hourly emissions 
after the change. The maximum hourly emissions test will be based 
either on maximum achieved or maximum achievable hourly emissions, 
measured on an input or an output basis. One proposed option provides 
that the maximum hourly emissions increase test would be followed by 
the annual emissions increase test in the current rules.


Statement of Need:


Utilization of this rulemaking's alternative NSR applicability test for 
existing EGUs would encourage increased utilization at the more 
efficient units by displacing energy production at less efficient ones.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act; CAA section 111(a)(4)


Alternatives:


The proposed basis for the applicability test is a comparison of 
maximum hourly emissions, which will enhance the implementation and 
environmental benefits for existing EGUs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We are not able to provide quantitative estimates of the costs and 
benefits of this rule because of the difficulty in identifying the 
quantity and locations of sources that will utilize this rulemaking in 
the future, and the difficulty in specifically quantifying the 
difference in environmental outcomes that would result with and without 
the rule. Qualitatively, our analysis indicates that we anticipate a 
reduction in recordkeeping and reporting--and therefore a decrease in 
cost--and we expect that the environmental benefits of the program 
would not significantly change and may improve as a result of the 
positive impact on the safety, reliability, and efficiency of EGUs as a 
result of this rulemaking.


Risks:


Risk information will be developed as appropriate as the rulemaking 
proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/20/05                    70 FR 61081
Supplemental NPRM               05/08/07                    72 FR 26202
Final Action                    08/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4794.2; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/October/Day-20/a20983.htm Split from RIN 2060-
AM95.


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/nsr

Agency Contact:
Lisa Sutton
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3450
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]

Dave Svendsgaard
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2380
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN28
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



151. FINAL RULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) 
PROGRAM FOR PM2.5

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7410; 42 USC 7501 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51

[[Page 69949]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking action is the final rule which lays out the provisions 
and requirements for implementation of the NSR program for particulate 
matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). This rule would apply 
to new and modified major stationary sources of PM2.5. In 1997, EPA 
promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA designations of 39 nonattainment areas 
for the PM2.5 standards became effective on April 5, 2005. The Clean 
Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, which was proposed in the 
Federal Register on November 1, 2005, included requirements and 
guidance for State and local air pollution agencies to follow in 
developing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to bring areas 
into attainment with the 1997 standards. The proposed rule also 
included the New Source Review (NSR) provisions for implementing the 
PM2.5 program. In this final action, we have split the NSR provisions 
of the proposed rule as a separate package. This rule will address the 
applicability of NSR to precursors, Major Source Threshold and 
Significant Emissions Rate for PM2.5, preconstruction monitoring 
requirements, offset provisions and inter pollutant trading of offsets 
and finally the transition provisions.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to promulgate the federal requirements for 
implementing a PM2.5 NSR program States and local agencies have until 
April 5, 2008 in preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed 
to address the NSR requirements for PM2.5.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7410 and 42 USC 7501 et seq.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be explored as the final rule is developed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We are not able to provide quantitative estimates of the costs and 
benefits of this rule because of our inability to specifically identify 
the quantity, types, and locations of sources that will be subject to 
this rulemaking in the future, and the difficulty in specifically 
quantifying the difference in environmental outcomes that would result 
with and without the rule. Qualitatively, our analysis indicates that 
we do not expect this rule to add to the costs of the program, nor do 
we expect that the benefits of the program will significantly change.


Risks:


Since the risks of PM2.5 emissions exposure have been addressed in the 
PM2.5 NAAQS rule, we do not anticipate any additional risk reduction as 
a result of implementing this rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/01/05                    70 FR 65984
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4752.2; Split from RIN 2060-AK74.


Agency Contact:
Raj Rao
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
RTP, NC 27709
Phone: 919 541-5344
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]

Dan Deroeck
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
RTP, NC 27709
Phone: 919 541-5593
Fax: 919 685-3009
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AN86
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



152. LEAD-BASED PAINT; AMENDMENTS FOR RENOVATION, REPAIR AND PAINTING

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2682 ``TSCA section 402''; 15 USC 2684 ``TSCA section 404''


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 28, 1996.


NPRM, Statutory, December 30, 2005, Administration deadline.


Abstract:


In 2008, EPA will continue its work towards the Administration goal of 
eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a national health concern by 
2010 by implementing a comprehensive program to address lead-based 
paint hazards associated with renovation, repair and painting 
activities. The program will be comprised of a combination of 
approaches including regulations, and an extensive education and 
outreach campaign that will include elements specifically designed for 
industry and consumers. Industry outreach will include dissemination of 
information regarding the regulation, lead-safe work practices, and 
training opportunities. Consumer outreach will be designed to expand 
consumer awareness, and create demand for the use of lead-safe work 
practices. EPA plans to finalize and begin implementation of the 
Renovation, Repair and Painting Program regulations in 2008. EPA 
proposed these regulations on January 10, 2006 and amended that 
proposal on June 5, 2007 to include child occupied facilities within 
the scope of the rule. The regulation should minimize the introduction 
of lead hazards resulting from the disturbance of lead-based paint 
during renovation, repair, and painting activities. The regulations 
would require contractors conducting renovation, repair and painting 
activities in most target housing and child occupied facilities to be 
trained, certified, and to follow work practice standards designed to 
minimize the creation of lead hazards.


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with almost a million young children having more than 10 ug/dl of lead 
in their blood (Center for Disease Control's level of concern). 
Although there have been dramatic declines in blood-lead levels due to 
reductions of lead in paint, gasoline, and food sources, remaining 
paint in older houses continues to be a significant source of childhood 
lead poisoning. These rules will help insure that individuals and firms 
conducting renovation, repairs and painting activities will do so in a

[[Page 69950]]

way that safeguards the environment and protects the health of building 
occupants, especially children under 6 years old.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is mandated by TSCA section 402(c). TSCA Section 402(c) 
directs EPA to address renovation and remodeling activities by first 
conducting a study of the extent to which persons engaged in various 
types of renovation and remodeling activities are exposed to lead in 
the conduct of such activities or disturb lead and create a lead-based 
paint hazard on a regular basis. Section 402(c) further directs the 
Agency to revise the lead-based paint activities regulations (40 CFR 
part 745 subpart L) to apply to renovation, remodeling or painting 
activities that create lead-based paint hazards.


Alternatives:


EPA is considering alternatives including on the job training for 
renovation workers, the use of test kits to determine the presence of 
lead paint, and the use of a cleaning verification protocol to 
determine if a job site is sufficiently clean. TSCA Section 402(c) 
states that should the Administrator determine that any category of 
contractors engaged in renovation or remodeling does not require 
certification; the Administrator may publish an explanation of the 
basis for that determination.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA's economic analysis provides quantitative cost estimates for the 
training, certification, and work practices required by the rule. The 
economic analysis provides quantitative benefits estimates for avoided 
incidence of IQ loss due to reduced lead exposures to children under 
the age of 6, and a qualitative discussion of other avoided adverse 
health effects in children and adults. The economic analysis of the 
final rule will incorporate new information characterizing lead levels 
in dust and soil after renovation, repair, and painting activities, and 
a new modeling approach to estimate the resultant blood lead and IQ 
loss in children under the age of 6.


Risks:


This rule is aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead 
poisoning, particularly in children. The Agency has concluded that many 
R&R work activities can produce or release large quantities of lead. 
These activities include, but are not limited to: sanding, cutting, 
window replacement, and demolition. Lead exposure to R&R workers 
appears to be less of a problem than to building occupants (especially 
young children). Some workers (and homeowners) are occasionally exposed 
to high levels of lead. Any work activity that produces dust and debris 
may create a lead exposure problem.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/10/06                     71 FR 1588
Notice of Availability; 
    Supplemental Economic 
    Analysis                    03/02/06                    71 FR 10628
Notice of Availability; 
    Draft Pamphlet              03/08/06                    71 FR 11570
Request for Comment; Lead 
    Paint Test Kit 
    Development                 03/16/06                    71 FR 13561
NPRM: Extension of 
    Comment Period              04/06/06                    71 FR 17409
Notice of Availability; 
    Study Results               03/16/07                    72 FR 12582
Supplemental NPRM               06/05/07                    72 FR 31022
Final Action                    03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3557; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2006/January/Day-10/t071.htm; EPA Docket information: 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; Individual Document id in the EPA docket: 
www.regulations.gov


Sectors Affected:


23599 All Other Special Trade Contractors; 23551 Carpentry Contractors; 
53111 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings; 23322 Multifamily 
Housing Construction; 23521 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors; 
531311 Residential Property Managers; 23321 Single Family Housing 
Construction; 54138 Testing Laboratories


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Agency Contact:
Mike Wilson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0521
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]

Julie Simpson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1980
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC83
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



153. REGULATION OF OIL-BEARING HAZARDOUS SECONDARY MATERIALS FROM THE 
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY PROCESSED IN A GASIFICATION SYSTEM TO 
PRODUCE SYNTHESIS GAS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6901; 42 USC 6905; 42 USC 6912(a); 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 
USC 6923; 42 USC 6924; 42 USC 6925; 42 USC 6926; 42 USC 6927; 42 USC 
6930; 42 USC 6934; 42 USC 6935; 42 USC 6937; 42 USC 6938; 42 USC 6939; 
42 USC 6974


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering 
finalizing revisions to the RCRA hazardous regulations to exclude oil-
bearing secondary materials, generated by the petroleum refining 
industry, from the definition of solid waste if the materials are 
destined to be processed in a gasification device manufacturing 
synthesis gas fuel. We are considering this exclusion in order to 
clarify and simplify RCRA jurisdiction, and to be consistent with other 
comparable existing exclusions in the petroleum refining industry.

[[Page 69951]]

Statement of Need:


We are undertaking the rulemaking to: (1) Prevent unnecessary confusion 
regarding the status of recycling of oil-bearing hazardous secondary 
material from the petroleum industry in a gasification system; (2) 
promote the use of a technologically advanced method of extracting 
hydrocarbons from secondary materials; and (3) remove regulatory 
restrictions that may limit the petroleum refining industry's ability 
to maximize the production of fuels and materials commodities from 
petroleum refining while minimizing the generation of waste.


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


Based on comments and additional analysis, we are looking into whether 
a separate exclusion is unnecessary and overly prescriptive and whether 
our original strategy of amending the existing regulatory language 
found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12) should be done.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimate the rule will yield between $46.4 million and 48.7 million 
in net social benefits per year. Avoided waste management costs make up 
the most significant share of the benefits followed by feedstock 
savings. Commercial facilities that manage refinery wastes may 
experience annual revenue losses of $10.8 million to $15.1 million 
under the final rule.


Risks:


N/A


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/25/02                    67 FR 13684
Notice: Extension of 
    Comment Period              06/11/02                    67 FR 39927
Final Action                    02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4411; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2002/March/Day-25/f7097.htm; This is an extension of 
a previous notice that contained the following RIN: 2050-AD88.; EPA 
Docket information: F-2002-RPRP-


Sectors Affected:


32411 Petroleum Refineries


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gas-fs.pdf

Agency Contact:
Elaine Eby
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8449
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: [email protected]

Rick Brandes
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8871
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE78
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



154. EXPANDING THE COMPARABLE FUELS EXCLUSION UNDER RCRA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


RCRA 4004


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 261.38


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA currently excludes specific industrial wastes, also known as 
comparable fuels, from most Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) hazardous waste management requirements when the wastes are used 
for energy production and do not contain hazardous constituent levels 
that exceed those found in a typical benchmark fuel that facilities 
would otherwise use. Using such wastes as fuel saves energy by reducing 
the amount of hazardous waste that would otherwise be treated and 
disposed, promotes energy production from a domestic, renewable source, 
and reduces use of fossil fuels. With an interest in supplementing the 
nation's energy supplies and to ensure that energy sources are managed 
only to the degree necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, EPA, as part of the Resource Conservation Challenge, is 
examining the effectiveness of the current comparable fuel program and 
considering whether other industrial wastes could be safely used as 
fuel as well. As part of this investigation, EPA has proposed to expand 
the existing comparable fuel exclusion and is seeking comment on that 
proposal.


Statement of Need:


EPA has proposed to expand the comparable fuel exclusion under section 
261.38 of the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for fuels that are produced from 
hazardous waste but which generate emissions that are comparable to 
emissions from burning fuel oil when such fuels are burned in an 
industrial boiler. Such excluded fuel would be called emission-
comparable fuel (ECF). ECF would be subject to the same specifications 
that currently apply to comparable fuels, except that the 
specifications for certain hydrocarbons and oxygenates would not apply. 
The ECF exclusion would be conditioned on requirements including: 
design and operating conditions for the ECF boiler to ensure that the 
ECF is burned under the good combustion conditions typical for oil-
fired industrial boilers; and conditions for tanks storing ECF which 
conditions are typical of those for storage of commercial fuels, and 
are tailored for the hazards that ECF may pose. This rule, if 
finalized, is intended to save energy by reducing the amount of 
hazardous waste that would be otherwise treated and disposed, and also 
to promote energy production from a domestic, renewable source and 
reduce our use of fossil fuels.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is discretionary on the Agency's part.


Alternatives:


To make significant changes to the existing comparable fuels standard, 
EPA must modify the existing regulations. EPA has proposed modified 
regulations and is seeking comment on those potential regulatory 
modifications.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule, as proposed, is projected to result in a benefit to society 
in the form of net cost savings to the private sector, on a nationwide 
basis, thereby allowing

[[Page 69952]]

for the more efficient use of limited resources elsewhere in the 
market. This is accomplished without compromising protection of human 
health and the environment by ensuring comparable emissions from the 
burning of high Btu value waste. The total net social benefits 
projected as a result of this rule, as proposed, are estimated at 
approximately $23 million per year. Avoided management and fuel costs 
represent the vast majority of all benefits (cost savings). 
Transportation, boiler retrofits, and analytical costs represent the 
majority of the costs. This estimate assumes all States adopt the rule, 
and incorporates all cost savings to affected generators, less all 
associated costs. Nearly 183,000 tons (U.S.) of waste are expected to 
initially qualify for the exclusion with approximately 107,000 tons/
year actually excluded. Of this total, we estimate that approximately 
34,000 tons are not currently burned for energy recovery.


Risks:


The exclusion for emission-comparable fuel (ECF) would be based on the 
rationale that ECF has fuel value, that the hydrocarbon and oxygenate 
constituents no longer subject to a specification themselves have fuel 
value, and that emissions from burning ECF in an industrial boiler 
operating under good combustion conditions are likely not to differ 
from emissions from burning fossil fuels under those same conditions. 
Emissions from burning ECF in an industrial boiler operating under good 
combustion conditions would be comparable to emissions from burning 
fuel oil in an industrial boiler operating under the same good 
combustion conditions because operating a boiler under good combustion 
conditions, evidenced by carbon monoxide (CO) emissions below 100 ppmv 
(on an hourly rolling average), assures the destruction of organic 
compounds generally to trace levels, irrespective of the type or 
concentration of the organic compound in the feed. Given that ECF 
(including the hydrocarbon and oxygenate portion) would have legitimate 
energy value and that emissions from burning ECF are comparable to fuel 
oil when burned in an industrial boiler under the good combustion 
conditions typical of such boilers, classifying such material as a fuel 
product and not as a waste promotes RCRA's resource recovery goals 
without creating a risk from burning greater than those posed by fossil 
fuel. Under these circumstances, EPA can permissibly classify ECF as a 
non-waste.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/15/07                    72 FR 33284
Notice: Extension of 
    Comment Period              07/19/07                    72 FR 39587
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4977; ; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0017; http://
www.regulations.gov


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/compfuels/exclusion.htm

Agency Contact:
Mary Jackson
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8453
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: [email protected]

Shiva Garg
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8459
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG24
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



155. DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTES REVISIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6903 ``RCRA Section 1004''


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 261.2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 28, 2003 (68 FR 61558), EPA proposed revisions to the 
definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials being 
reclaimed in a continuous process in the generating industry in an 
effort to increase the recycling of such materials. The Agency also 
took comment on a broader proposal to exclude hazardous secondary 
materials from being a solid waste under RCRA Subtitle C. This proposal 
was in part prompted by various court decisions about the extent of 
RCRA jurisdiction over hazardous secondary materials being recycled. In 
the same notice, the Agency also proposed criteria for determining 
whether or not hazardous secondary materials are recycled legitimately; 
the legitimacy criteria would apply to both those hazardous secondary 
materials that were excluded, as well as those that would remain 
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA received numerous 
comments on the proposal. In addition, EPA has conducted studies of 
recycling practices and the circumstances under which recycling of 
hazardous secondary materials are reclaimed in an environmentally sound 
manner, as well as when such reclamation has caused environmental 
problems. Based on the comments received and the new information being 
made available for public comment, the Agency issued a supplemental 
proposal on March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14172) to exclude from being a solid 
waste certain hazardous secondary materials that are reclaimed. We also 
took comment on revisions being considered to the legitimacy criteria, 
as well as on a variance process regarding hazardous secondary 
materials that are recycled.


Statement of Need:


EPA is revising the definition of solid waste to increase recycling.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 203 F. 2d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 
2000); American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 
and other cases.


Alternatives:


We have solicited comment in the proposal on several alternative 
regulatory options, including a broad exclusion for legitimately 
recycled materials, and are evaluating public comments on all available 
options.

[[Page 69953]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


If the exclusions are promulgated as proposed and are adopted by all 
states, EPA expects this action to result in a net effect of $107 
million in average annual cost savings to about 4600 facilities in 530 
industries, and is expected to remove from RCRA regulation 0.65 million 
tons per year of hazardous secondary materials currently managed as 
RCRA hazardous waste, and 0.06 million tons (9%) of hazardous waste 
that is currently disposed (i.e., landfilled or incinerated), which EPA 
expects may switch to recycling as a result of this rule. The breakdown 
of net cost savings per exclusion is $87 million per year for materials 
recycled onsite, by the same company, or through a tolling arrangement, 
$19 million per year for intercompany offsite recycling, and one 
million per year for case-by-case non-waste determinations. These 
estimates are within the uncertainty range of $93 million to $205 
million in annual materials management cost savings, and 0.33 to 1.70 
million tons per year in affected hazardous secondary materials, 
respectively, for the net effect of the proposed regulatory exclusions.


Risks:


EPA has conducted three new studies that address the following risk-
related questions: (1) How do recyclers ensure that industrial 
recycling is done in an environmentally safe manner?; (2) to what 
extent has industrial recycling resulted in past environmental 
problems?; and (3) are there certain economic forces that can explain 
environmental problems resulting from such recycling? EPA used these 
studies in developing our 2007 proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/28/03                    68 FR 61558
Supplemental NPRM               03/26/07                    72 FR 14172
Final Action                    07/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4670.1; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2003/October/Day-28/f26754.htm; Split from RIN 2050-
AE98.


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/index.htm

Agency Contact:
Marilyn Goode
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8800
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: [email protected]

Tracy Atagi
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8672
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG31
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



156. NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR PEAK WET WEATHER DISCHARGES FROM 
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORK TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING SANITARY SEWER 
COLLECTION SYSTEMS POLICY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311; 33 USC 1318; 33 USC 1342; 33 USC 1361


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122.41(m)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


During periods of wet weather, wastewater flows received by municipal 
sewage treatment plants can significantly increase, which can create 
operational challenges for sewage treatment facilities. Where peak 
flows approach or exceed the design capacity of a treatment plant they 
can seriously reduce treatment efficiency or damage treatment units. In 
addition to hydraulic concerns, wastewater associated with peak flows 
may have low organic strength, which can also decrease treatment 
efficiencies. One engineering practice that some facilities use to 
protect biological treatment units from damage and to prevent overflows 
and backups elsewhere in the system is referred to as wet weather 
blending. Wet weather blending occurs during peak wet weather flow 
events when flows that exceed the capacity of the biological units are 
routed around the biological units and blended with effluent from the 
biological units prior to discharge. Regulatory agencies, sewage 
treatment plant operators, and representatives of environmental 
advocacy groups have expressed uncertainty about National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements addressing such 
situations. EPA requested public comment on a proposed policy published 
on November 7, 2003. Based on a review of all the information received, 
EPA has decided not to finalize the policy as proposed in November 
2003. On December 22, 2005, EPA requested public comment on an 
alternative Peak Flows Policy that is significantly different than the 
2003 draft policy.


Statement of Need:


Regulatory agencies, municipal operators of wastewater facilities, and 
representatives of environmental advocacy groups have expressed 
uncertainty about the appropriate regulatory interpretation for peak 
wet weather diversions at publicly owned treatment works (POTW) 
treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer collection systems. 
This policy is needed to clarify NPDES permit requirements for such wet 
weather diversions and to ensure a comprehensive regulatory approach 
reduces peak wet diversions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


33 USC 1251 et seq.


Alternatives:


On November 7, 2003, EPA requested public comment on a proposed policy 
which would have provided an alternative regulatory interpretation. 
Under the proposed interpretation in the November 7, 2003 proposed 
policy, a wet weather diversion around biological treatment units that 
was blended with the wastewaters from the biological units prior to 
discharge would not have been considered to constitute a prohibited 
bypass if the six criteria specified in the November 7, 2003 proposed 
policy were met. EPA received significant public comment on the 
proposed policy, including over 98,000 comments opposing the policy due 
to concerns about human health risks. On May 19, 2005, EPA indicated 
that after consideration of the

[[Page 69954]]

comments, the Agency had no intention of finalizing the 2003 proposal. 
On July 26, 2005, Congress enacted the FY 2006 Department of the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 
109-54). Section 203 of the Appropriations Act provides that none of 
the funds made available in the Act could be used to finalize, issue, 
implement or enforce the November 7, 2003 proposed blending policy. On 
December 22, 2005, EPA requested public comment on an alternative Peak 
Flows Policy that is significantly different than the 2003 draft 
policy.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with this policy have not been 
evaluated.


Risks:


The collection and treatment of municipal sewage and wastewater is 
vital to public health. During significant rain events, high volumes of 
water entering a sewage collection system can overwhelm the collection 
system or treatment plant. Operators of wastewater treatment plants 
must manage these high flows to both ensure the continued operation of 
the treatment process and to prevent backups and overflows of raw 
wastewater in basements or city streets. The proposed policy seeks to 
reduce public health risks by encouraging municipalities to make 
investments in ongoing maintenance and capital improvements to improve 
their system's long-term performance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
1st Draft Policy                11/07/03                    68 FR 63042
2nd Draft Policy                12/22/05                    70 FR 76013
Final Policy                    03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4690; EPA publication information: 2nd Draft Policy - http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2005/December/Day-22/w7696.htm; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523


Sectors Affected:


22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/npdes

Agency Contact:
Kevin Weiss
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0742
Fax: 202 564-6392
Email: [email protected]

Mohammed Billah
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0729
Fax: 202 564-0717
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AD87
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



157. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


CWA 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 122; 40 CFR Part 412


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking is in response to the Second Circuit's February 28, 
2005, decision in Waterkeeper Alliance vs. EPA, which vacated 
provisions in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) rule 
found at 40 CFR 412. Two vacatures from the case affect the 1) duty 
that all CAFOs need to apply for an NPDES permit, and 2) provisions 
that nutrient management plans (NMPs) need only be kept on-site. This 
rule would remove the duty to apply for all CAFOs and replace it with a 
requirement for CAFOs to apply for a permit if they discharge or 
propose to. The rule also would establish a process to address the 
court's concerns that the information within NMPs be available for 
public comment, reviewed by the permit authority, and incorporated into 
the permit. It is EPA's intention to make only those changes necessary 
to address the issues raised by the court.


Statement of Need:


EPA is revising the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards (ELGs) for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in 
response to the decision issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005), which 
vacated certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule and remanded other 
aspects for clarification. This rule responds to the court's decision 
while furthering the statutory goal of restoring and maintaining the 
nation's water quality and effectively ensuring that CAFOs properly 
manage manure generated by their operations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also 
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters'' 
(33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Among the core provisions, the CWA establishes the 
NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of 
pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. 
Section 502(14) of the CWA specifically includes CAFOs in the 
definition of the term ``point source.`` Section 502(12) defines the 
term ''discharge of a pollutant`` to mean ''any addition of any 
pollutant to navigable waters from any point source`` (emphasis added). 
EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES 
program at 40 CFR Part 122. The Act also provides for the development 
of technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that 
are imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of 
pollutants from point sources. CWA sections 301(a) and (b).


Alternatives:


Because this rulemaking is in response to the decision issued by the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA vacating 
or remanding certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule, there are no non-
regulatory options that would satisfy the requirements of the court.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Since there is no change in technical requirements, changes in impacts 
on respondents are estimated to result exclusively from changes in the

[[Page 69955]]

information collection burden. EPA estimates that CAFOs will experience 
a net reduction in administrative burden of approximately $15.4 million 
due to the court decision. At the same time, however, permitting 
authorities would have to bear a net $0.5 million annual increase in 
administrative burden. In total, the administrative burden under the 
proposed rule is projected to decline to a total of approximately $64 
million annually for both regulated facilities and permit authorities, 
which constitutes a reduction of more than $14.9 million compared to 
the 2003 CAFO rule.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/30/06                     71 FR37744
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4996; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2006/June/Day-30/w5773.htm;


Agency Contact:
George Utting
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0744
Email: [email protected]

Rebecca Roose
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0758
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE80
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



158. WATER TRANSFERS RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1251 et seq.


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking addresses the question of whether the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program under 
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is applicable to water control 
facilities that merely convey or connect navigable waters. For purposes 
of this action, the term ``water transfer'' refers to any activity that 
conveys or connects navigable waters (as that term is defined in the 
CWA) without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, 
or commercial use. This rulemaking focuses exclusively on water 
transfers and is not relevant to whether any other activity is subject 
to the CWA permitting requirement.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to clarify that NPDES permits are generally 
not required for water transfers. In 2004, this question was presented 
before the Supreme Court in South Florida Water Management District v. 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. The Court declined to rule directly on the 
issue and remanded it back to the District Court for further 
deliberation, generating uncertainty among the potentially regulated 
community and other stakeholders.


Summary of Legal Basis:


33 USC 1251 et seq.


Alternatives:


On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal memorandum entitled ``Agency 
Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act 
to Water Transfers.'' Based on the statute as a whole, this memo 
concluded that Congress generally intended for water transfers to be 
subject to oversight by water resource management agencies and State 
non-NPDES authorities, rather than the NPDES permitting program. The 
interpretive memo stated that the Agency would initiate a rulemaking to 
this effect. The issuance of a rulemaking will provide the greatest 
certainty for stakeholders.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking.


Risks:


There are no risks associated with this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/07/06                    71 FR 32887
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5040; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2006/June/Day-07/w8814.htm; ; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/npdes/agriculture

Agency Contact:
Virginia Garelick
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-2316
Fax: 202 564-6384
Email: [email protected]

MichaelG Lee
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
2355A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-5486
Fax: 202 564-5531
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE86
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



159. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE FOR MERCURY WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1251 et seq


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 69956]]

Abstract:


In the 2001 Federal Register notice of the availability of EPA's 
recommended water quality criterion for methylmercury, EPA stated that 
it would develop associated procedures and guidance for implementing 
the criterion. For states and authorized tribes exercising 
responsibility under CWA section 303(c), this document provides 
technical guidance on how they might want to use the recommended 2001 
fish tissue-based criterion to develop and implement their own water 
quality standards for methylmercury. The guidance addresses topics 
including adoption and revision of standards, monitoring, waterbody 
assessment, water quality standards issues, TMDL development, and NPDES 
permitting. Since atmospheric deposition is considered to be a major 
source of mercury for many waterbodies, implementing this criterion 
involves coordination across media and program areas.


Statement of Need:


The methylmercury criterion is expressed as a fish and shellfish tissue 
value, and this raises both technical and programmatic implementation 
questions. Development of water quality standards, NPDES permits, and 
TMDLs present challenges because these activities typically have been 
based on a water concentration (e.g., as a measure of mercury levels in 
effluent). This guidance addresses issues associated with states and 
authorized tribes adopting a fish tissue-based water quality criterion 
into their water quality standards programs and implementation of the 
revised water quality criterion in TMDLs and NPDES permits. Further, 
because atmospheric deposition serves as a large source of mercury for 
many waterbodies, implementation of the criterion involves coordination 
across media and program areas.


Summary of Legal Basis:


N/A


Alternatives:


N/A


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with this guidance have not been 
evaluated.


Risks:


N/A


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Document                  01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5098; FDMS Docket number: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0656


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury

Agency Contact:
Fred Leutner
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4305T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE87
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

[[Page 69957]]




EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing six federal statutes. These statutes 
are: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits 
employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, 
or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended; the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended; Title I of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and sections 
501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (disability); 
and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, which extends 
protections against employment discrimination to certain employees who 
were not previously covered.
The item in this Regulatory Plan involves a new exemption from the 
prohibitions of the ADEA for the practice of altering, reducing, or 
eliminating employer-sponsored retiree health benefits when retirees 
become eligible for Medicare or comparable State retiree health 
benefits. This rule is intended to ensure that the application of the 
ADEA does not discourage employers from providing health benefits to 
their retirees. The Commission does not believe that the proposed 
exemption will have a significant impact on small business entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it imposes no economic or 
reporting burdens on such firms. On February 4, 2005, AARP sued the 
EEOC to prevent issuance of the final rule in Federal district court. 
The district court ultimately found that the EEOC did, in fact, have 
authority to issue the regulation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
agreed with this conclusion in a June 4, 2007 decision and lifted a 
stay on issuance of the rule on September 13, 2007.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement 
was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The statement has 
not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the Commission.
_______________________________________________________________________



EEOC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




160. COORDINATION OF RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS WITH MEDICARE AND STATE 
HEALTH BENEFITS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 628


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1625


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission proposes to exempt from the prohibitions of the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. (ADEA 
or Act), the practice of altering, reducing, or eliminating employer-
sponsored retiree health benefits when retirees become eligible for 
Medicare or comparable State retiree health benefits.


Statement of Need:


In August 2001, the Commission announced that it would consider the 
relationship between the ADEA and employer-sponsored retiree health 
benefit plans that alter, reduce, or eliminate benefits upon 
eligibility for Medicare or a comparable State-sponsored retiree health 
benefits program. There has been a decline in the number of employers 
providing retiree health benefits over the last 10 years. Various 
factors have contributed to this erosion, including the increased cost 
of health care coverage, an increased demand for such coverage as large 
numbers of workers near retirement age, and changes in the way 
accounting rules treat the long-term costs of providing retiree health 
benefits. Another factor has been employer concern about the potential 
application of the ADEA to employer-sponsored retiree health benefits. 
The Commission is proposing a narrowly drawn ADEA exemption that 
permits the practice of coordinating employer-provided retiree health 
coverage with eligibility for Medicare or a State-sponsored retiree 
health benefits program, so that the ADEA does not discourage employers 
from providing, or continuing to provide, health benefits to their 
retirees.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pursuant to section 9 of the ADEA, the Commission is authorized to 
establish reasonable exemptions to and from any or all provisions of 
the Act as it may find necessary and proper in the public interest.


Alternatives:


The Commission considered various alternatives in developing this 
proposal. The Commission considered all alternatives offered by the 
public commenters.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Commission recognizes that while employers are under no legal 
obligation to offer retiree health benefits, some employers choose to 
do so in order to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, 
using these and other benefits to attract and retain the best talent 
available to work for their organizations. The proposed rule will 
ensure that the application of the ADEA does not discourage employers 
from providing, or continuing to provide, health benefits to their 
retirees who otherwise would have to obtain such coverage in the 
private individual marketplace at significant personal expense. The 
Commission believes that it is in the best interest of both employers 
and employees for the Commission to pursue a policy that permits 
employers to offer these benefits to the greatest extent possible.


Risks:


The proposed regulatory action will reduce the risks of liability for 
noncompliance with the statute by exempting certain employer practices 
from regulation. This proposal does not address risks to public safety 
or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/14/03                    68 FR 41542
NPRM Comment Period End         09/12/03
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State

[[Page 69958]]

Agency Contact:
Dianna B. Johnston
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4638
TDD Phone: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3046-AA72
BILLING CODE 6570-01-S

[[Page 69959]]




GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The General Services Administration (GSA) establishes agency 
acquisition rules and guidance through the General Services Acquisition 
Regulation (GSAR), which contains agency acquisition policies and 
practices, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that 
control the relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective 
contractors.
GSA's fiscal year 2008 regulatory priority is to continue with the 
complete rewrite of the GSAR. GSA is rewriting the GSAR to maintain 
consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and to 
implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that 
contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when 
entering into and administering contractual relationships.
GSA will clarify the GSAR to-
 Provide consistency with the FAR;
 Eliminate coverage which duplicates the FAR or creates 
            inconsistencies within the GSAR;
 Correct inappropriate references listed to indicate the basis 
            for the regulation;
 Rewrite sections which have become irrelevant because of 
            changes in technology or business processes, or which place 
            unnecessary administrative burdens on contractors and the 
            Government;
 Streamline or simplify the regulation;
 Roll up coverage from the services and regions/zones which 
            should be in the GSAR;
 Provide new and/or augmented coverage; and
 Delete unnecessary burdens on small businesses.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-S

[[Page 69960]]




NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
NASA's Mission, as stated in its 2006 Strategic Plan, is ``To pioneer 
the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics 
research.'' In the 50 years since Congress enacted the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific 
and engineering capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating 
tremendous results and benefits for all of humankind.
In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress endorsed the Vision for 
Space Exploration and provided additional guidance for implementation. 
NASA is committed to achieving this Vision through the six Strategic 
Goals articulated in the 2006 Strategic Plan:
1. Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not 
            later than 2010.
2. Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with 
            NASA's International Partner commitments and the needs of 
            human exploration.
3. Develop a balanced program of science, exploration, and aeronautics 
            consistent with the Agency's new exploration focus.
4. Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as 
            possible after Shuttle retirement.
5. Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging 
            commercial space sector.
6. Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility 
            for later missions to Mars and other destinations.
In embracing a vision and mission for space exploration, and continued 
scientific discovery and aeronautics research, NASA pledges to continue 
the American tradition of pioneering. In pursuit of these activities, 
NASA is increasing internal collaboration, leveraging personnel and 
facilities, developing strong, healthy Centers, and fostering a safe 
environment of respect and open communication. We also will ensure 
clear accountability and solid program management and reporting 
practices. Effective regulation supports NASA activities related to its 
Vision, Mission and Goals. The following are narrative descriptions of 
the most important regulations being planned for publication in the 
Federal Register during fiscal year (FY) 2008.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1, contains 
procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. 
NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR 
Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. Major NFS revisions are not 
expected in FY 2008, except to conform to the FAR implementation of 
Earned Value Management, the revision of FAR Part 45, Government 
Property, and the expected change to FAR Part 27, Patents, Data, and 
Copyrights. In a continuing effort to keep the NFS current with NASA 
initiatives and Federal procurement policy, minor revisions to the NFS 
will be published.
NASA is continuing consideration of revisions to the cross-waiver of 
liability regulation at 14 CFR Part 1266. Specifically, NASA is 
considering implementation of the cross-waiver of liability provision 
of the intergovernmental agreement of the International Space Station 
and refinement and clarification of contractual cross-waivers in NASA 
agreements involving launch services.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-S

[[Page 69961]]




NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues 
regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. 
Records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the 
proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the 
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues 
Governmentwide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has one regulatory priority for fiscal year 2008, which is 
included in The Regulatory Plan. We are revising and updating our 
records management regulations in 36 CFR ch. XII, subchapter B. We 
began work on this priority in fiscal year 2004 with a proposal for a 
new organizational framework for the records management regulations to 
make them easier to use. We will issue the proposed rule to revise 
subchapter B in the second quarter of 2008.
Regulations of Particular Concern to Small Businesses
None in fiscal year 2007.
_______________________________________________________________________



NARA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




161. FEDERAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


44 USC 2104(a); 44 USC ch 21; 44 USC ch 29; 44 USC ch 33


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 1220 to 1238


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of its initiative to redesign Federal records management, NARA 
is revising its records management regulations in 36 CFR ch. XII, 
subchapter B to ensure that the regulations are appropriate, effective, 
and clear. The proposed revision will be issued in fiscal year 2008 for 
Federal agency and public comment.


Statement of Need:


NARA's records management program was developed in the 20th century in 
a paper environment. This program has not kept up with a Federal 
Government that creates and uses most of its records electronically. 
Today's Federal records environment requires different management 
strategies and techniques.


The revision of NARA's records disposition policies, processes, and 
tools is identified in our Strategic Plan as a key strategy to meet the 
primary goal that ``essential evidence will be created, identified, 
appropriately scheduled, and managed for as long as needed.`` Without 
effective records management, records needed to document citizens' 
rights, actions for which Federal officials are responsible, and the 
historical experience of our Nation will be at risk of loss, 
deterioration, or destruction.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Records Act, the Archivist of the United States is 
responsible for: 1) Providing guidance and assistance to Federal 
agencies to ensure adequate and proper documentation of the policies 
and transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper records 
disposition (44 USC 2904); 2) approving the disposition of Federal 
records (44 USC 33); and 3) preserving and making available the Federal 
records of continuing value that have been transferred to the National 
Archives of the United States (44 USC 21).


The Federal Records Act also makes the heads of Federal agencies 
responsible for making and preserving records containing adequate and 
proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, 
decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and is 
designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and 
financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by 
the agency's activities (44 USC 3101). Agency heads must also have an 
active, continuing records management program (44 USC 3102).


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The revision of NARA's records disposition policies and processes is 
intended to reduce the burden on agencies and NARA in the area of 
records management and disposition activities.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Begin Review                    09/17/02
ANPRM                           03/15/04                    69 FR 12100
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/14/04
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


URL For More Information:
www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/rm-redesign-project.html

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Nancy Allard
Regulatory Contact
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 837-1477
Fax: 301 837-0319
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 3095-AB05, Related to 3095-AB41, Related to 
3095-AB43, Related to 3095-AB39
RIN: 3095-AB16
BILLING CODE 7515-01-S

[[Page 69962]]




OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Office of Personnel Management's mission is to ensure the Federal 
Government has an effective civilian workforce. OPM fulfills that 
mission by, among other things, providing human capital advice and 
leadership for the President and Federal agencies; delivering human 
resources policies, products, and services; and holding agencies 
accountable for their human capital practices. OPM's 2007 regulatory 
priorities are designed to support these activities.
Retirement Systems Modernization
Retirement Systems Modernization (RSM) is a strategic initiative of the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to improve the quality and 
timeliness of services to individuals covered by the Civil Service 
Retirement System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System by 
modernizing business processes and the technology that supports them. 
RSM will transform the retirement process by devising more efficient 
and effective business systems to issue timely benefit payments and to 
respond to increased customer demand for higher levels of customer 
service and online self-service tools.
Some existing regulatory provisions and the procedures they prescribe 
are directed at the current paper-based system that will eventually 
cease to exist, but which will continue to operate concurrently with 
respect to at least certain aspects of retirement and insurance 
processing for some individuals. Implementation of RSM will begin in 
February 2008. Retirement and insurance records of current employees 
and annuitants will be migrated into the new system in a series of 
waves over the following months. The proposed RSM regulations primarily 
address the transformation from paper to electronic records and the 
automated application process -- cornerstones of the modernization 
effort -- while creating structure for future OPM directives that will 
be issued as necessary to facilitate the evolution of the RSM 
initiative.
Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits
OPM is proposing interim regulations to administer the Federal Employee 
Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004. This law 
establishes dental and vision benefits programs for Federal employees, 
annuitants, and their families. By law the Federal Employees Dental and 
Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP) became effective in 2006. Congress 
and the Administration intended for the Program to be available to 
enrollees as of the end of 2006, and the rules governing the program 
are effectively established in the existing contracts that OPM has 
entered into with the dental and vision carriers pursuant to the FEDVIP 
law. These interim regulations explain the program rules to affected 
enrollees and the general public, and will assist the administration of 
the Program.
Adverse Action Regulations
In FY 2008, OPM plans to issue final amendments to its regulations 
governing Federal adverse actions and career and career-conditional 
employment. The amendments will clarify the adverse action rules 
regarding employee coverage and bring the rules into conformance with 
binding judicial decisions interpreting the underlying statute. OPM 
also plans to amend these regulations to clarify the rules as needed 
under the Federal Workplace Flexibility Act of 2004 regarding 
reductions in pay and to clarify the scope of indefinite suspensions. 
Concurrently, OPM will remove unnecessary subparts of the regulations 
that cover statutory requirements, make a number of technical 
corrections, and use language consistent with similar regulatory 
requirements. The regulations will also be made more readable. These 
changes will help ensure that the Federal Government has an effective 
civilian workforce.
Suitability and National Security
OPM is participating in a review of the Federal Government's 
requirements for access to classified information and for suitability 
for employment. This review covers relevant statutes, executive orders, 
and Governmentwide regulations and is intended to determine whether a 
reengineered system that is as cohesive, simplified, and equitable as 
possible can be developed. In particular, a reengineered system may 
require adjustments to the following Government-wide regulations within 
OPM's jurisdiction: (1) Suitability, 5 CFR Part 731; (2) National 
Security Positions, 5 CFR Part 732; and (3) Personnel Investigations, 5 
CFR Part 736. OPM expects this review process and any potential 
modifications of these regulations to be made by the end of FY 2008.
Training; Supervisory, Management, and Executive Development
On October 30, 2004, the President signed the Federal Workforce 
Flexibility Act of 2004 (Act), Public Law 108-411, into law. The Act 
makes several significant changes in the law governing the training and 
development of Federal employees, supervisors, managers, and 
executives. It requires each agency to evaluate, on a regular basis, 
its training programs and plans to ensure that its training activities 
are linked to the accomplishment of its specific performance plans and 
strategic goals, and to modify its training plans and programs as 
needed to accomplish the agency's performance plans and strategic 
goals. Another change requires agencies to work with OPM to establish 
comprehensive management succession programs designed to develop future 
managers for the agency. It also requires agencies, in consultation 
with OPM, to establish programs to provide training to managers 
regarding how to relate to employees with unacceptable performance, 
mentor employees, use various actions, options and strategies to 
improve employee performance and productivity, and conduct employee 
performance appraisals. OPM regulations will be designed to address 
these changes, and in general to increase the emphasis on employee and 
executive development in the Federal Government.
Human Capital Management
The provisions of Public Law 107-296 include the Chief Human Capital 
Officers Act of 2002 (Act), which, among other things, amended OPM's 
authorizing legislation in chapter 11 of title 5, United States Code, 
requiring OPM to design a set of systems, including appropriate 
metrics, for assessing the management of human capital by Federal 
agencies. On May 23, 2006, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register, Human Capital Management in Agencies, that would implement 
the provisions of the Act, as well as Executive Order 13197, 
Governmentwide Accountability for Merit System Principles; Workforce 
Information (January 18, 2001). The proposed rule establishes a basic 
framework for planning and assessing human capital management progress 
and results, including compliance with relevant laws, rules and 
regulations, as assessed through agency human capital accountability 
systems and reported in annual agency human capital management reports. 
OPM expects to issue the final rule in October 2007.

[[Page 69963]]

Leave for Employees Affected by a Pandemic Health Crisis or Other 
Emergencies
 In FY 2008, OPM will continue efforts to provide alternative methods 
for agencies to assist their employees in the event of a pandemic 
health crisis or other major disasters or emergencies as declared by 
the President. Under current law and regulations, in the event of a 
major disaster or emergency, as declared by the President, that results 
in severe adverse effects for a substantial number of employees, the 
President may direct OPM to establish an emergency leave transfer 
program under which an employee may donate unused annual leave for 
transfer to employees of his or her agency or to employees in other 
agencies who are adversely affected by such disaster or emergency. OPM 
anticipates issuing regulations that will enhance the emergency leave 
transfer program by-
 Allowing donated annual leave in an agency's voluntary leave 
            bank program to be transferred to an emergency leave 
            transfer program administered by another agency. OPM's 
            regulations currently permit an agency's leave bank to 
            donate annual leave to an emergency leave transfer program 
            administered by the leave bank's employing agency. We 
            believe a broader authority, which several agencies 
            requested in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, would have 
            provided an immediate benefit to employees adversely 
            affected by Hurricane Katrina and could benefit employees 
            adversely affected by future major disasters or 
            emergencies.
 Providing for the participation of Judicial branch employees 
            in any emergency leave transfer program after consultation 
            with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 
            (in accordance with the amendments made by Public Law 109-
            229, effective May 31, 2006).
Pay Flexibilities and Entitlements
In FY 2008, OPM will continue to enhance pay flexibilities and 
entitlements to help Federal agencies better meet their strategic human 
capital needs. OPM anticipates finalizing interim regulations that 
implemented statutory changes dealing with recruitment, relocation, and 
retention incentives and pay setting for General Schedule employees. 
These statutory and regulatory changes provided agencies with enhanced 
pay authorities and flexibilities and made the pay setting rules more 
rational, consistent, and equitable. Also, OPM anticipates finalizing 
proposed regulations governing student loan repayment benefits, which 
agencies may offer to current Federal employees or candidates for 
Federal jobs when necessary to recruit or retain highly qualified 
personnel. These revisions will include certain policy changes and 
clarifications to assist agencies in taking full advantage of the 
Federal student loan repayment program.
Privacy Act Regulations
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to 
revise the agency's Privacy Act regulations. The revisions include 
incorporating the Agency reorganization of 2003 and making plain 
language modifications.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to 
revise the agency's FOIA regulations. The revisions include 
incorporating the EFOIA Act of 1996 and the Agency reorganization of 
2003, and making plain language modifications.
BILLING CODE 6325-44-S

[[Page 69964]]




PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the pensions 
of over 44 million working men and women in about 30,000 private 
defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax 
revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment 
income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from 
the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out these functions, PBGC issues regulations interpreting such 
matters as the termination process, establishment of procedures for the 
payment of premiums, reporting and disclosure, and assessment and 
collection of employer liability. The Corporation is committed to 
issuing simple, understandable, and timely regulations to help affected 
parties do business.
PBGC's intent is to issue regulations that implement the law in ways 
that do not impede the maintenance of existing defined benefit plans or 
the establishment of new plans. Thus, the focus is to avoid placing 
burdens on plans, employers, and participants, wherever possible. PBGC 
also seeks to ease and simplify employer compliance whenever possible.
PBGC Insurance Programs
PBGC administers two insurance programs for private defined benefit 
plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (ERISA): a single-employer plan termination insurance program and 
a multiemployer plan insolvency insurance program.
 Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer program, 
            PBGC pays guaranteed and certain other pension benefits to 
            participants and beneficiaries if their plan terminates 
            with insufficient assets (distress and involuntary 
            terminations). Early in 2005, the Administration proposed 
            reforms to improve funding of plans and restore the 
            financial health of the insurance program, which had an 
            $18.1 billion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2006.
 Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
            covers 1,600 collectively bargained plans involving more 
            than one unrelated employer. PBGC provides financial 
            assistance (in the form of a loan) to the plan if the plan 
            is unable to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. 
            Guaranteed benefits are less than single-employer 
            guaranteed benefits. The multiemployer program, which is 
            separately funded from the single-employer program, had a 
            $739 million deficit at the end of FY 2006.
Recent Legislation
Legislation signed into law in 2006 -- the Deficit Reduction Act of 
2005 (DRA 2005) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006) -- 
contain various provisions intended to improve plan funding, enhance 
pension-related reporting and disclosure, and strengthen the insurance 
programs.
Regulatory Objectives and Priorities
PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to implement 
the DRA 2005 and PPA 2006 changes by issuing simple, understandable, 
and timely regulations that do not impose undue burdens that would 
impede maintenance or establishment of defined benefit plans. These 
regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of 
the Corporation's statutory purposes:
 To encourage voluntary private pension plans;
 To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension 
            benefits; and
 To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
PBGC also attempts to minimize administrative burdens on plans and 
participants, improve transparency, simplify filing, and provide relief 
for small businesses. As mentioned below, the first set of rulemakings 
concerns premiums, disclosure of termination information, annual 
financial and actuarial reporting, and missing participants.
The Corporation seeks to improve transparency of information to plan 
participants, investors, and PBGC, in order to better inform them and 
to encourage more responsible funding of pension plans. PPA 2006 
contains provisions for disclosure of certain information to 
participants regarding the termination of their underfunded plan. PBGC 
expects to publish a proposed regulation on this disclosure of 
termination information in late 2007.
PPA 2006 also makes changes to the plan actuarial and employer 
financial information required under section 4010 of ERISA to be 
reported to PBGC by employers with large amounts of pension 
underfunding. PBGC expects to publish a proposed regulation 
implementing those changes in late 2007.
PBGC also seeks to simplify filing with PBGC by increasing use of 
electronic filing. Electronic filing of premium information is now 
mandatory for all plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
2007. Filers have a choice of using private-sector software that meets 
PBGC's published standards or using PBGC's software. Electronic premium 
filing simplifies filers' paperwork, improves accuracy of PBGC's 
premium records and database, and enables more prompt payment of 
premium refunds.
In 2007, PBGC published two proposed rules implementing most of the 
premium changes under DRA 2005 and PPA 2006. The Corporation expects to 
finalize these rules in late 2007. PBGC expects to publish a proposed 
rule in mid-2007 implementing the authority under PPA 2006 to pay 
interest on premium overpayments. The Corporation is incorporating the 
changes to the flat-rate and variable-rate premiums into software so 
that it will be easy to comply with the premium changes under the new 
law.
Plan actuarial and employer financial information required under 
section 4010 of ERISA to be reported to PBGC by employers with large 
amounts of pension underfunding is required to be filed electronically. 
Electronic filing reduces the filing burden, improves accuracy, and 
better enables PBGC to monitor and manage risks posed by these plans. 
PBGC is incorporating the PPA 2006 changes to this reporting into 
software so that it will be easy to comply with the reporting changes 
under the new law.
PBGC gives consideration to the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by 
PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. The first proposed 
rule PBGC published under PPA 2006 implemented the cap on the variable-
rate premium for plans of small employers. In early 2008, the 
Corporation expects to issue a proposed regulation implementing the 
expanded missing participants program under PPA 2006, which will also 
benefit small businesses.
PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-01-S

[[Page 69965]]




SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
 The Small Business Administration's (SBA) mission is to maintain and 
strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the establishment and 
viability of small businesses and by assisting in economic recovery of 
communities after disasters. In order to accomplish this mission, SBA 
focuses on improving the economic and regulatory environment for small 
businesses, especially those in areas that have significantly higher 
unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's' averages and 
those in traditionally underserved markets. The agency also focuses on 
providing timely, effective financial assistance to businesses- 
including non-profit organizations, homeowners, and renters affected by 
disasters.
SBA is committed to:
 Working with its financial partners to improve small 
            businesses' access to capital through SBA's loan and 
            venture capital programs;
 Providing technical assistance to small businesses through its 
            resource partners;
 Increasing contracting and business opportunities for small 
            businesses;
 Providing affordable, timely and easily accessible financial 
            assistance to businesses, homeowners and renters after a 
            disaster; and
 Measuring outcomes, such as revenue growth, job creation, 
            business longevity, and recovery rate after a disaster, to 
            ensure that SBA's programs and services are delivered 
            efficiently and effectively.
SBA's regulatory actions reflect the goals and objectives of the agency 
and are designed to provide the small business and residential 
communities with the information and guidance they need to succeed as 
entrepreneurs and restore their homes or other property after a 
disaster. In the coming year, SBA's regulatory priorities will focus on 
strengthening SBA's management of its business loan programs, including 
proposing a rule that would support lender oversight and improve lender 
performance. This proposed rule would further the President's priority 
of improved financial performance in government, and financial 
institutions would benefit from performance feedback to the extent it 
can assist them in improving their SBA operations and minimizing 
losses. The estimated cost of the changes incorporated into this 
proposed rule is $1.5 million.
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




162. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING COMPANY AND LENDER OVERSIGHT REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 650


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 120


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would implement the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
statutory authority under the Small Business Reauthorization and 
Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004 (Reauthorization Act) to regulate 
Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs) and non-federally regulated 
lenders (NFRLs). It also would conform SBA rules to various changes in 
the section 7(a) Business Loan Program and the Certified Development 
Company (CDC) Program enacted by the Reauthorization Act.


In particular, this rule would: (1) Define SBLCs and NFRLs; (2) clarify 
SBA's authority to regulate SBLCs and NFRLs; (3) authorize SBA to set 
minimum capital standards for SBLCs, to issue cease and desist orders, 
and revoke or suspend lending authority of SBLCs and NFRLs; (4) 
establish the Bureau of Premier Certified Lender Program Oversight in 
the Office of Credit Risk management; (5) transfer existing SBA 
enforcement authority over CDCs from the Office of Financial Assistance 
to the Office of Credit Risk Management; and (6) define SBA's 
enforcement authorities relative to all SBA lenders participating in 
the 7(a) and CDC programs and intermediaries in the Microloan program.


Statement of Need:


Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act states that SBA may provide 
financing to small businesses ``directly or in cooperation with banks 
or other financial institutions.'' Presently, SBA guarantees loans 
through approximately 5,000 lenders. Of these lenders, about 14 are 
SBLCs that are not otherwise regulated by Federal or State chartering/
licensing agencies. SBA examines these SBLCs periodically. 
Congressional and Administration policy to delegate lending 
responsibilities to SBLCs and other SBA lenders requires that SBA 
increase its lender oversight. To that end, SBA will draft regulations 
that strengthen the Agency's management of its business loan and lender 
oversight programs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Small Business Act, section 23(b)(3).


Alternatives:


This rulemaking amends and expands SBA's existing regulations on the 
SBLC and lender oversight programs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rulemaking is designed to strengthen SBA's regulations regarding 
the SBLC Program and business loan and lender oversight programs. Some 
additional costs associated with additional reporting by the SBLCs, 
NFRLs, and other SBA lenders to the SBA are anticipated.


Risks:


This regulation poses no risks to the public health and safety or to 
the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/31/07                    72 FR 61752
NPRM Comment Period End         12/31/07
Final Action                    10/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Bryan Hooper
 Director, Office of Credit Risk Management
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7443
Fax: 202 205-6831
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3245-AE14
BILLING CODE 8025-01-S

[[Page 69966]]




SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the retirement, 
survivors, and disability insurance programs under title II of the 
Social Security Act (the Act), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
program under title XVI of the Act and the Special Veterans Benefits 
under title XVIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, we also assist 
in administering portions of the Medicare program. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits 
under these programs. Generally, SSA's regulations do not impose 
burdens on the private sector or on State or local governments.
In the coming years, the Social Security Administration will be facing 
significant challenges. As a service Agency, we must ensure that as the 
baby-boomers reach their retirement and disability-prone years, we 
continue to provide high-quality service. We must continue to address 
and drive down the significant workload backlogs, most especially at 
the hearing level for our disability claims. We also must continue to 
develop systems capabilities that will enable us to provide high-
quality services in an era of diminishing resources. This regulatory 
plan introduces some of the incremental initiatives we will undertake 
this year to meet those challenges.
The 19 entries in SSA's Regulatory Plan represent the issues of major 
importance to the Agency in the retirement, survivors, disability, SSI, 
and Medicare programs. Several of these regulatory priorities reflect 
recently enacted statutory provisions, including the Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203). We describe the individual 
initiatives more fully in the attached Regulatory Plan.
Improving the Disability Process
Because the continued improvement of the disability program is of vital 
concern to SSA, we have 13 initiatives in the Plan addressing 
disability-related issues. They include:
 An initiative concerning attempts by disabled individuals to 
            return to the workforce revising several current 
            regulations addressing the Ticket to Work program. It 
            improves mechanisms for assisting disabled individuals who 
            want to return to the workforce. It also simplifies and 
            improves the definition of ``using a ticket'' and the 
            related requirements for measuring ``timely progress toward 
            self-supporting employment;''
 A final rule modifying the disability administrative 
            adjudication process by suspending the Federal Reviewing 
            Official program, now operating in the Boston region, and 
            removing the Office of Medical and Vocational Expertise 
            from the disability adjudication process;
 A final rule providing that SSA identify claimants with 
            serious medical conditions as soon as possible, allowing 
            the Agency to grant benefits expeditiously to those 
            claimants who meet SSA disability standards;
 A final rule expanding appellate procedures currently in place 
            in the Boston Region to all hearing offices nationwide and 
            applying those procedures to hearings on both disability 
            and non-disability matters;
 Amendments to hearing level adjudication where we propose to 
            amend several regulations and provide new regulatory 
            language in order to address inefficiencies in the hearings 
            process. These amendments will improve the operational 
            effectiveness of our hearings offices. The amendments 
            include several provisions revising current regulations: 1) 
            clarifying that claims denied by state Disability 
            Determination Services for ``failure to cooperate'' are 
            technical denials rather than medical determinations, 2) 
            allowing Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to dismiss more 
            quickly cases at the hearing level when fully favorable 
            decisions have already been issued by the State agency, and 
            3) providing flexibility in setting the time and place of 
            hearings. We also intend to propose new regulatory 
            provisions that will allow ALJs to dismiss a request for a 
            hearing where a claimant has abandoned his or her claim and 
            to specify regulatory standards that require ALJs to 
            clearly articulate their rationale when issuing decisions 
            on remanded claims;
 Amendments and clarifications that apply to all levels of our 
            adjudicatory process. Our proposals include: 1) clarifying 
            ``good cause,'' 2) reemphasizing that Social Security 
            Rulings are binding on all components, 3) clarifying rules 
            regarding recontacting medical sources to resolve 
            ambiguities in the current regulation, and 4) specifying 
            that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the 
            appropriate standard for adjudicating claims at the first 
            three levels of administrative review. We also will propose 
            new regulatory language that will redefine the definition 
            of a Medical Source Statement in terms of the limitations 
            imposed by the claimant's impairments rather than their 
            remaining capacities, change the protected filing date for 
            title II from 6 months to 60 days to mirror the policy in 
            title XVI, and eliminate the requirement for additional 
            documentation for proof of age for retirement applications 
            where the alleged age matches information already contained 
            in our database;
 Updates to Medical-Vocational Rules that will modernize 
            specific criteria in the Agency's medical-vocational rules. 
            We propose to clarify our policy regarding the definition 
            of ``significant number of jobs'' to provide adjudicators 
            with the flexibility to use a variety of methods to 
            document their decision. We also propose changing the age 
            range for a person ``closely approaching retirement age'' 
            from ``60 - 64'' to ``60 and older'' to acknowledge that 
            SSA makes disability determinations for individuals over 
            age 65 without making substantive changes to the way 
            adjudicators weigh the effects of age. Another proposed 
            technical change includes modifying the vocational factor 
            of ``education'' by removing references to ``skilled'' and 
            ``semiskilled'' work as they relate to educational level, 
            revising ``direct entry'' rules, clarifying the definitions 
            of ``education'' and ``limited education,'' and introducing 
            a rebuttable presumption that an individual's educational 
            level is commensurate with his or her formal schooling. We 
            also intend to clarify our policy regarding the use of 
            vocational experts (VEs) and vocational specialists 
            specifically with regard to the use of interrogatories for 
            VEs and the use of various occupational data elements;
 Clarifying when claims or issues previously decided are barred 
            from further consideration to ensure consistency of 
            decisions at different levels of adjudication and in 
            different locations in the country; and,
 Five initiatives updating the medical listings used to 
            determine disability-a final rule on immune system 
            disorders, 3 proposed rules on evaluating mental disorders, 
            evaluating hearing loss and malignant neoplastic diseases, 
            and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on HIV 
            infections.

[[Page 69967]]

Improved Stewardship
Included in the Plan are several regulatory initiatives designed to 
strengthen our stewardship and program integrity activities. Another 
initiative reflects the goal to improve financial performance, as found 
in the President's Management Agenda. These initiatives are:
 A final rule proposing annual onsite reviews of consultative 
            examiners (CE) facilities by State Disability Determination 
            Services (DDS). This rule will update the annual threshold 
            amount of billing used to select CE providers for review. 
            Raising the threshold amount enables DDS staff to perform 
            this review function more efficiently.
 A final rule detailing procedures to limit information 
            provided to the public about employees in abusive 
            relationships who fear for their physical well-being. This 
            rule will also conform our Freedom of Information Act 
            regulations with those of the Office of Personnel 
            Management.
 A final rule prohibiting the award of title II benefits to 
            persons fleeing prosecution, custody, or confinement after 
            conviction, and to persons violating probation or parole. 
            This final rule reflects a provision of the Social Security 
            Protection Act of 2004.
 A proposed rule specifying the requirements certain non-
            citizen workers must meet to establish entitlement to 
            benefits under title II, as provided in the Social Security 
            Protection Act of 2004.
Enhanced Public Service
We are proposing to revise our rules concerning the representation of 
claimants before the Social Security Administration. These proposed 
rules would amend existing regulatory provisions and add new language 
recognizing law firms and other entities as claimant representatives. 
We are also proposing a rule that requires representatives who seek 
payment for their services to file requests for reconsideration or 
hearings via the internet.
We also will propose to improve the operational efficiency of field 
offices by reducing the number of individuals who must be interviewed, 
face-to-face, in the office. Specifically, we will eliminate the 
requirement to re-interview individuals who became a representative 
payee (rep payee) for more than one beneficiary. Current policy 
requires a face-to-face interview for all proposed rep payees. This 
regulation will eliminate the requirement for that interview where an 
individual is already serving as a rep payee for another beneficiary.
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




163.  REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMMUNE (HIV) 
SYSTEM DISORDERS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


There are several important initiatives concerning updates to our 
medical listings. In addition to those medical listings already on our 
2007 Regulatory Plan, we intend to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking concerning whether and how to revise the listing for HIV 
infection.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary in order to update the HIV evaluation 
listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
evaluation methods. It ensures that determinations of disability have a 
sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the 
use of specific criteria, and that individuals who are disabled can be 
readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
James Julian
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4015
RIN: 0960-AG71
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




164. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MENTAL DISORDERS (886P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1520 to 404.1520a; 20 CFR 404.1528; 
20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 416.928


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to update and revise the rules that we use to evaluate 
mental disorders of adults and children who apply for, or receive, 
disability benefits under title II and Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) payments based on disability under title XVI of the Social 
Security Act (the Act). The rules we plan on revising are sections 
12.00 and 112.00 in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our 
regulations (the listings). These listings include such disorders as 
affective disorders,

[[Page 69968]]

schizophrenic disorder, intellectual disabilities, and autistic 
disorders.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the listings for evaluating 
mental disorders to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, 
and methods of evaluating these diseases. They ensure that 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that 
individuals who are disabled can be readily identified and awarded 
benefits if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of diseases. We have not 
comprehensively revised the current listings in over 15 years. Medical 
advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/17/03                    68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/16/03
NPRM                            11/00/07
Final Action                    07/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Julian
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4015

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AF69
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



165. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEARING LOSS (2862P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 2.00 and 102.00, Special Senses and Speech, of appendix 1 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (404.1501 through 404.1599) 
describe hearing loss that is considered severe enough to prevent a 
person from doing any gainful activity, or for a child claiming 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI, that cause 
marked and severe functional limitations. We are revising these 
sections to ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date 
and consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and 
treatment. The SSI program incorporates by reference and uses the same 
medical criteria as the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance 
program.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the hearing loss listings to 
reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of 
evaluating hearing impairments. They ensure that determinations of 
disability have a sound medical basis, which claimants receive equal 
treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are 
disabled can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other 
factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes and thus, continuing to use our current criteria. However, we 
believe that proposing these revisions is preferable because of the 
medical advances that have been made in treating and evaluating these 
types of impairments. The currently listings are now over 15 years old. 
Medical advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/05                    70 FR 19353
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/13/05
NPRM                            03/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 69969]]

Agency Contact:
James Julian
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4015

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG20
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



166. ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ALIEN WORKERS 
(2882P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 414(c); 42 USC 423(a)(1)(C); PL 108-203, sec 211


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.110; 20 CFR 404.120; 20 CFR 404.130; 20 CFR 404.315; 20 CFR 
404.1912; 20 CFR 404.1931


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule will revise our regulations on insured status to 
include an additional insured status requirement under section 211 of 
Public Law 108-203--the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA)--
for an alien worker who was originally assigned a Social Security 
number (SSN) on or after January 1, 2004. Under this law, an alien 
worker must meet either of the following additional requirements to be 
fully or currently insured and to establish entitlement to any title II 
benefits based on his/her earnings:


* At the time that SSA issues the SSN or later, the alien worker must 
be authorized by the Department of Homeland Security to work in the 
United States; or


* The alien worker must have been admitted to the United States at any 
time as a nonimmigrant visitor for business (immigration category ``B-
1'') or as an ``alien crewman'' (immigration category ``D-1'' or ``D-
2'').


If an alien worker whose SSN was originally assigned on or after 
January 1, 2004, does not meet either of these requirements, then he/
she is not fully or currently insured; thus entitlement is precluded. 
This is true even if the alien worker appears to have the required 
number of quarters of coverage (QCs) in accordance with the other 
insured status provisions. The additional insured status requirement 
affects the entitlement of certain alien workers, and any person 
seeking a benefit on the record of an alien who is subject to this law.


An alien worker who was properly assigned a SSN before January 1, 2004, 
is not subject to section 211 of the SSPA.


Statement of Need:


By incorporating the changes mandated by the law in our regulations, 
our program rules and operating instructions will be consistent with 
the statute.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The proposed revisions to our regulations will reflect the statutes as 
amended by section 211 of the SSPA.


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Administrative start-up costs will be nominal since we already 
implemented the law via POMS instructions and adjudicator training. No 
systems changes are needed. Benefits include savings to the title II 
Trust Funds and in administrative enumeration costs since some 
claimants who are denied under this law will not be able to get an SSN 
card for non-work purposes. We estimate that costs will be less than 
$500,000 per year and total roughly $2,000,000 over a 10 year period.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jessica Burns
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-8481

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG22
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



167.  AMENDMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, APPEALS 
COUNCIL, AND DECISION REVIEW BOARD APPEALS LEVELS (3401P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 
405(d)-(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 
USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 421 note; 42 USC 902 note; 42 
USC 405(s); 42 USC 423(a); 42 USC 423(b); 42 USC 1381; 42 USC 1381a; 42 
USC 1383; 42 USC 1383b; 42 USC 423(i)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.900; 20 CFR 404.901; 20 CFR 404.911; 20 CFR 404.924; 20 CFR 
404.925; 20 CFR 404.928; 20 CFR 404.929; 20 CFR 404.933; 20 CFR 
404.935; 20 CFR 404.936; 20 CFR 404.938 to 404.940; 20 CFR 404.943; 20 
CFR 404.944; 20 CFR 404.946; 20 CFR 404.948 to 404.953; 20 CFR 404.955 
to 404.961; 20 CFR 404.966 to 404.977; 20 CFR 404.979; 20 CFR 404.981 
to 404.984; 20 CFR 404.989; 20 CFR 404.992; 20 CFR 404.993; 20 CFR 
404.999c; 20 CFR 405.1 ; 20 CFR 405.5; 20 CFR 405.10; 20 CFR 405.20; 20 
CFR 405.25; 20 CFR 405.30; 20 CFR 405, app to A; 20 CFR 405.230; 20 CFR 
405.301; 20 CFR 405.305; 20 CFR 405.310; 20 CFR 405.315 to 405.317 ; 20 
CFR 405.320; 20 CFR 405.325; 20 CFR 405.330 to 405.334; 20 CFR 405.340; 
20 CFR 405.350; 20 CFR 405.351; 20 CFR 405.360; 20 CFR

[[Page 69970]]

405.365; 20 CFR 405.366; 20 CFR 405.370 to 405.373; 20 CFR 405.380 to 
405.383; 20 CFR 405.401; 20 CFR 405.405; 20 CFR 405.410; 20 CFR 
405.415; 20 CFR 405.420; 20 CFR 405.425; 20 CFR 405.427; 20 CFR 
405.430; 20 CFR 405.440; 20 CFR 405.445; 20 CFR 405.450; 20 CFR 
405.501; 20 CFR 405.505; 20 CFR 405.510; 20 CFR 405.515; 20 CFR 
405.601; 20 CFR 405.701; 20 CFR 405.705; 20 CFR 405.710; 20 CFR 
405.715; 20 CFR 405.720; 20 CFR 405.725; 20 CFR 416.1400; 20 CFR 
416.1401; 20 CFR 416.1411; 20 CFR 416.1424; 20 CFR 416.1425; 20 CFR 
416.1428; 20 CFR 416.1429; 20 CFR 416.1433; 20 CFR 416.1435; 20 CFR 
416.1436; 20 CFR 416.1438 to 416.1440; 20 CFR 416.1443; 20 CFR 
416.1444; 20 CFR 416.1446; 20 CFR 416.1448 to 416.1453; 20 CFR 416.1456 
to 416.1461; 20 CFR 416.1466 to 416.1477; 20 CFR 416.1479; 20 CR 
416.1481 to 20 CFR 416.1484; 20 CFR 416.1489


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to include in parts 404 and 416 of our rules many of the 
hearing level procedures now in place for disability cases in the 
Boston region. This change will expand those rules nationwide and apply 
them to hearings on both disability and non-disability matters. We 
expect these rules will make the hearings process more efficient and 
help us reduce the hearings backlog, which has reached historic 
proportions, thereby benefiting all individuals requesting a hearing. 
We also propose to amend our rules governing the final level of the 
administrative review process to make proceedings at that level more 
appellate in nature, to establish procedures for appeals to that level, 
and to change the name of the body that will hear such appeals from the 
``Appeals Council,'' or the ``Decision Review Board'' in the Boston 
region, to the ``Review Board.'' Consistent with the change to a more 
appellate process, we suggest limiting the circumstances in which new 
evidence may be added to the record during the appellate process. We 
also propose circumscribing the time period covered in any subsequent 
administrative hearing on remand from the Review Board or a Federal 
court to the time period covered by the first administrative law 
judge's (ALJ) hearing decision in the case.


Statement of Need:


Workloads at the hearing level have continued to grow, as have requests 
for review of hearing decisions. We expect even further increases in 
the hearings and appeals workloads as the baby boom generation advances 
through their disability-prone years. The proposed regulatory changes 
are necessary to make the hearings process more efficient and help us 
reduce the hearings backlog, which has reached historic proportions, 
thereby benefiting all individuals requesting a hearing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising these regulations; however, we believe that 
the current and anticipated backlogs of cases at the appeals levels of 
our adjudication process require this action. We are making these 
proposals to ensure that we continually improve our disability 
adjudications process.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We expect that, if finalized, the proposed rules will reduce program 
costs by $1.5 billion. We anticipate a small increase in program costs 
the first year, followed by savings that increase initially but begin 
to decline in 2013.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/29/07                    72 FR 61218
NPRM Comment Period End         12/28/07
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Brent Hillman
ODAR
Social Security Administration
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
Phone: 703 605-8280

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG52
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



168.  REPRESENTATION OF CLAIMANTS (3396P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our regulations concerning the representation of 
claimants before the Social Security Administration (SSA), and to 
publish the amended regulations in a new part of SSA's regulations. 
Under the proposed rules, we would amend existing provisions of our 
regulations on representation and add new provisions to the regulations 
for the purpose of recognizing firms and other entities as participants 
in the representation of claimants. We are also proposing a general 
expansion of our regulations on representation to add new provisions 
that would regulate additional practices and procedures that we follow 
in dealing with representatives and integrate those practices and 
procedures with the changes that we are making to recognize firms and 
other entities. These new provisions pertain primarily to our 
procedures for authorizing and paying fees for services representatives 
furnish in proceedings before us. Further, in addition to the changes 
in our existing regulations proposing to recognize firms and other 
entities, we are also proposing other, specific changes that affect the 
appointment or

[[Page 69971]]

representatives, authorization and payment of fees, and rules of 
conduct for representatives who violate our requirements, rules, or 
standards. The proposed rules also generally reorganize and rewrite 
existing regulatory provisions creating a new part in SSA's 
regulations.


Statement of Need:


Undetermined at this time.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Undetermined at this time.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marg Handel
Team Supervisor
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4639

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AG56
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



169.  REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC 
DISEASES (3429P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 13.00 and 113.00, Malignant Neoplastic Diseases, of appendix 1 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (404.1501 through 404.1599) 
describe malignant neoplastic diseases that are considered severe 
enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or for a 
child claiming SSI payments under title XVI, that cause marked and 
severe functional limitations. We are revising these sections to ensure 
that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with 
he latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment. The SSI program 
incorporates by reference and uses the same medical criteria as the 
old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program.


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulations are necessary to update the Malignant 
Neoplastic Diseases listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment and methods of evaluating Malignant Neoplastic Diseases 
Impairments. They ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis; that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that individuals who are disabled can be 
readily identified and awarded benefits, if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising selected criteria of the listings or making 
only minor technical changes and thus, continuing to use our current 
criteria. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of impairments. The current 
listings are less than three years old, being effective 12/15/2004. It 
was our intention to monitor these listings and to update the criteria 
as the need arose. Medical advances in disability evaluation and 
treatment and our program experience make clear that the current 
listings do not reflect state-of-the-art medical knowledge and 
technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Julian
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4015

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG57
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



170.  AMENDMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS 
(3431P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 402(j); 42 USC 402(o); 42 USC 402(p); 
42 USC 402(r); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 
42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 416(i); 
42 USC 416(i)(2); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 421 
note; 42 USC 421m; 42 USC 423; 42 USC 423(b); 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 423 
note; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 428(a); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 note; 42 
USC 1306; 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 1382a; 42 USC 1382b; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 
1382h; 42 USC 1382h note; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC

[[Page 69972]]

1383(b); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 42 USC 1383(p); 42 USC 
1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 402.35; 20 CFR 404.630; 20 CFR 404.715(d); 20 CFR 404.900; 20 
CFR 404.913; 20 CFR 404.953; 20 CFR 404.911(b)(10); 20 CFR 404.947 new; 
20 CFR 404.1512(b)(3); 20 CFR 404.1513; 20 CFR 404.1566(e); 20 CFR 
408.340; 20 CFR 408.345; 20 CFR 416.340; 20 CFR 416.345; 20 CFR 
416.912(b)(3); 20 CFR 416.913; 20 CFR 416.966(e); 20 CFR 
416.1411(b)(10); 20 CFR 416.1400; 20 CFR 416.1445 new; 20 CFR 422.1441 
new; 20 CFR 422.202 new; 20 CFR 422.203


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We intend to propose regulations that apply to all levels of our 
adjudicatory process. Our proposals include: 1) clarifying ``good 
cause,'' 2) reemphasizing that Social Security Rulings are binding on 
all components, 3) clarifying rules regarding recontacting medical 
sources to resolve ambiguities in the current regulation, and 4) 
specifying that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the 
appropriate standard for adjudicating claims at the first three levels 
of administrative review. We also will propose new regulatory language 
that will redefine the definition of a Medical Source Statement in 
terms of the limitations imposed by the claimant's impairments rather 
than their remaining capacities, change the protected filing date for 
title II from 6 months to 60 days to mirror the policy in title XVI, 
and eliminate the requirement for additional documentation for proof of 
age for retirement applications where the alleged age matches 
information already contained in our database.


Statement of Need:


SSA currently faces a considerable challenge in processing a large 
backlog of requests for hearings at resource levels that have not kept 
pace with the rising level of receipts. Our proposed rulemaking will 
address the current and growing need for greater accuracy, efficiency, 
and cost control by clarifying inconsistencies in policy and 
streamlining procedures at all levels of our adjudicatory process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Martin J Sussman
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1767
RIN: 0960-AG58
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



171.  REQUIREMENT THAT PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES FILE 
REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HEARINGS VIA 
THE INTERNET (3432P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are proposing changes to modify our disability determination process 
in order to require professional representatives to file electronically 
for Reconsideration or Hearing by an Administrative Law Judge of 
medical claims. This requirement is necessary because of the growing 
number of disability appeals, the current backlog, and limitations in 
staffing and funding. Social Security intends that this action will 
shorten disability appeals time by reducing labor and processing time.


Statement of Need:


Undetermined at this time.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Undetermined at this time.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Brent Hillman
ODAR
Social Security Administration
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
Phone: 703 605-8280

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG59
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



172.  AMENDMENTS TO HEARINGS LEVEL ADJUDICATION (3434P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 
405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 421; 42 USC 
421 note; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 note; 
42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.936; 20 CFR 404.948; 20 CFR 404.957; 20 CFR 416.1436; 20 CFR 
416.1448; 20 CFR 416.1457

[[Page 69973]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend several regulations and provide new regulatory 
language in order to address inefficiencies in the hearings process. 
These amendments will improve the operational effectiveness of our 
hearings offices. The amendments include several provisions revising 
current regulations: 1) clarifying that claims denied by state 
Disability Determination Services for ``failure to cooperate'' are 
technical denials rather than medical determinations, 2) allowing 
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to dismiss more quickly cases at the 
hearing level when fully favorable decisions have already been issued 
by the State agency, and 3) providing flexibility in setting the time 
and place of hearings. We also intend to propose new regulatory 
provisions that will allow ALJs to dismiss a request for a hearing 
where a claimant has abandoned his or her claim and to specify 
regulatory standards that require ALJs to clearly articulate their 
rationale when issuing decisions on remanded claims.


Statement of Need:


SSA currently faces a considerable challenge in processing a large 
backlog of requests for hearings at resource levels that have not kept 
pace with the rising level of receipts. Our proposed rulemaking will 
address the current and growing need for our services by increasing 
accuracy, efficiency, and cost control at the hearings level.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Susie Wakshul
Director, Division of Field Practices
Social Security Administration
Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
5701 Leesburg Pike
Fall Church, VA 22041
Phone: 703 605-7547

Lois A. Berg
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1713
RIN: 0960-AG61
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



173.  UPDATES TO MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL GUIDELINES

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 
42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 416(i); 
42 USC 421; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 421(m); 42 USC 421 
note; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 321 note; 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 USC 
423 note; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 note; 42 USC 1382; 
42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h; 42 USC 1382h note; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 
1383(a); 42 USC 1383(b); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 42 USC 
1383(p); 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.917(b); 20 CFR 404.953(a); 20 CFR 404.1563(e); 20 CFR 
404.1564; 20 CFR 404.1566(b); 20 CFR 404.1566(e); 20 CFR 
404.1568(d)(4); 20 CFR 404.1615(e); 20 CFR 416.963(e); 20 CFR 416.964; 
20 CFR 416.966(b); 20 CFR 416.966(e); 20 CFR 416.968(d)(4); 20 CFR 
416.1015(e); 20 CFR 416.1417(b); 20 CFR 416.1453


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These proposals will update specific criteria in the Agency's medical 
vocational rules. We propose to clarify our policy regarding the 
definition of ``significant number of jobs'' to provide adjudicators 
with the flexibility to use a variety of methods to document their 
decision. We also propose changing the age range for a person ``closely 
approaching retirement age'' from ``60 -- 64'' to ``60 and older'' to 
acknowledge that SSA makes disability determinations for individuals 
over age 65 without making substantive changes to the way adjudicators 
weigh the effects of age. Another proposed technical change includes 
modifying the vocational factor of ``education'' by removing references 
to ``skilled'' and ``semiskilled'' work as they relate to educational 
level, revising ``direct entry'' rules, clarifying the definitions of 
``education'' and ``limited education,'' and introducing a rebuttable 
presumption that an individual's educational level is commensurate with 
his or her formal schooling. We also intend to clarify our policy 
regarding the use of vocational experts (VEs) and vocational 
specialists specifically with regard to the use of interrogatories for 
VEs and the use of various occupational data elements.


Statement of Need:


The last major revision of the Agency's medical-vocational rules took 
place in 1978. Our proposed rules will update several critical areas of 
those rules to better reflect current standards in medical-vocational 
policy and will allow adjudicators to make more accurate disability 
determinations at all adjudicatory levels.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined

[[Page 69974]]

Agency Contact:
Art Spencer
Office Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-5766
RIN: 0960-AG68
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



174.  CLARIFY APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 
405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 421; 42 USC 
421 note; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 note; 
42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.953; 20 CFR 416.1453


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In order to ensure consistency of decisions at different levels of 
adjudication and in different locations in the country, we will draft a 
regulation that clarifies the applicability of the concept of res 
judicata to findings in the disability process. The proposed regulation 
will specify that all adjudicators must explain in writing any change 
in circumstance leading to a determination different than that 
previously reached during adjudication of a case.


Statement of Need:


It is part of our obligation to the American public that we continue 
the best possible support for older Americans, people with 
disabilities, and their families. Our proposed rulemaking will ensure 
consistency and accuracy in decisions by requiring adjudicators to 
explain, in writing, any change in circumstances leading to change in 
disability determination.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dean Landis
Director, Office of Regulations
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0520
RIN: 0960-AG69
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



175.  ELIMINATE RE-INTERVIEWING OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405(k); 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.2024(b)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to improve the operational efficiency of field offices by 
reducing the number of individuals who must be interviewed, face-to-
face, in the office. Specifically, we will eliminate the requirement to 
re-interview individuals who became a representative payee (rep payee) 
for more than one beneficiary. Current policy requires a face-to-face 
interview for all proposed rep payees. This regulation will eliminate 
the requirement for that interview where an individual is already 
serving as a rep payee for another beneficiary.


Statement of Need:


Budget shortfalls over the past several years have reduced our ability 
to meet the nation's growing needs. Social Security is responding by 
finding ways to increase our capacity for providing service to the 
public by reducing streamlining our business processes. Our proposed 
rulemaking will increase productivity by eliminating redundant 
interviews.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be included in the NPRM


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dean Landis
Director, Office of Regulations
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0520
RIN: 0960-AG70
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




176. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDERS 
(804F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 69975]]

Abstract:


We will update and revise the rules that we use to evaluate immune 
system disorders of adults and children who apply for, or receive, 
disability benefits under title II and Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) payments based on disability under title XVI of the Social 
Security Act (the Act). The rules we will revise are sections 14.00 and 
114.00 in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 
404 of our regulations (the listings). These listings include such 
disorders as HIV/AIDS, systemic lupus erythematosus, and inflammatory 
arthritis.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the listings for evaluating 
immune system disorders to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment, and methods of evaluating these diseases. They ensure the 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that 
individuals who are disabled can be readily identified and awarded 
benefits if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of diseases. The current listings 
are now over 13 years old. Medical advances in disability evaluation 
and treatment and our program experience make clear that the current 
listings do not reflect state-of-the-art medical knowledge and 
technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We anticipate that these final rules will result in negligible program 
and administrative costs.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           05/09/03                    68 FR 24896
ANPRM Comment Period End        07/08/03
NPRM                            08/04/06                    71 FR 44431
NPRM Comment Period End         10/03/06
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Julian
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-4015

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF33
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



177. AMENDMENTS TO THE TICKET TO WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM 
(967F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1320b-19; PL 106-170, sec 101


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 411.110; 20 CFR 411.120 to 411.155; 20 CFR 411.165 to 411.166; 
20 CFR 411.170 to 411.171; 20 CFR 411.175; 20 CFR 411.180; 20 CFR 
411.190; 20 CFR 411.191; 20 CFR 411.210; 20 CFR 411.325; 20 CFR 411.350 
to 411.370; 20 CFR 411.385 to 411.390; 20 CFR 411.500 to 411.515; 20 
CFR 411.525 to 411.566; 20 CFR 411.575 to 411.590


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These final rules will revise our current rules that implement the 
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program under section 1148 of the 
Social Security Act. The rules will expand beneficiary eligibility to 
receive tickets under this program; clarify the rules for assignment of 
a beneficiary's ticket to a State vocational rehabilitation (VR) 
agency; revise the rules for payment when a beneficiary receives 
services from both a State VR agency and an employment network (EN); 
and, consistent with the Commissioner's authority in section 1148(h) of 
the Act, revise the rules for milestone and outcome payments, in order 
to increase the incentives for providers of employment services, 
vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services to 
participate in this program.


Statement of Need:


These final rules are necessary to respond to our experience and the 
recommendations we have received since we began implementation of the 
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program in February 2002. These 
changes are intended to increase the incentives for providers of 
employment, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support 
services to participate in this program, and to expand the options 
available to beneficiaries with disabilities to obtain services to 
assist them to go to work and attain self-sufficiency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the current regulations implementing the 
Ticket to Work program. However, we believe that these revisions to the 
eligibility to receive a ticket, the clarification of the rules for 
assignment of a ticket to a State VR agency, and the amendment of the 
rules for paying ENs are necessary to increase participation in the 
Ticket to Work program by both service providers and the beneficiaries 
with disabilities. This will increase the opportunities for the 
beneficiaries to seek the services necessary to obtain and retain 
employment and reduce their dependency on cash benefit programs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We anticipate initial costs to increase due to up-front payments to 
ENs, and then increased program savings in later years as ENs assist 
more beneficiaries to achieve self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on 
cash benefit programs, including the Supplemental Security Income and 
Social Security Disability

[[Page 69976]]

Insurance programs. These proposed changes are estimated to result in 
additional costs through 2017 due to increases in the frequency and 
levels of payments to providers, as well as to the deferral or loss of 
savings achieved currently from the Continuing Disability Review 
process. While these higher costs are estimated to be partially offset 
later through an associated increase in the number of successful work 
attempts resulting in a reduction or elimination of certain OASDI and 
SSI benefits, the net effect is an increase in outlays over the budget 
horizon of approximately $1.3 billion.


Risks:


At this time, we have not identified any risks associated with this 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/30/05                    70 FR 57222
NPRM Comment Period End         12/29/05
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Daniel O'Brien
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Ticket Operations and Provider Support
Office of Employment Support Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 597-1632

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
Related RIN: Related to 0960-AG44
RIN: 0960-AF89
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



178. PRIVACY AND DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND INFORMATION; 
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC (2562F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552 to 5 USC 552a; 42 USC 1306(a); 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 401 app A(b)(3)(c)(4); 20 CFR 402.45(e)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We plan to revise our privacy and disclosure rules to:


1. Add a new section to set out detailed procedures to further preserve 
the anonymity and protect the physical well-being of employees in 
abusive relationships or who fear for their physical well-being because 
of threats from others;


2. Conform SSA's Freedom of Information Act regulations in this respect 
more closely to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations; and


3. Develop procedures for the protection in the electronic environment 
of personally identifiable information for at-risk employees.


Statement of Need:


To better preserve the anonymity of, and to better protect the physical 
well-being of, our employees who reasonably believe that they are at 
risk of injury or other harm if certain employment information about 
them is disclosed. They also ensure uniform application of the policy 
for at-risk employees.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative-not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not changing our rules. However, these final rules with 
request for comments conform to current regulations but provide for 
strengthening our privacy and disclosure rule to afford better 
protection of employees.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Negligible. Any costs were associated with regulations previously 
implemented.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/06/06                    71 FR 32494
NPRM Comment Period End         08/07/06
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Edie McCracken
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Public Disclosure
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-6117

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG14
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



179. CONSULTATIVE EXAMINATION--ANNUAL ONSITE REVIEW OF MEDICAL 
EXAMINERS (3338F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 421(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1519s; 20 CFR 416.919s


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are amending our regulations to reflect the impact of inflation 
since 1991 when they were implemented. We propose to change the 
threshold

[[Page 69977]]

amount to require the State disability determination services (DDSs) to 
perform an onsite review of consultative examination (CE) providers 
from $100,000 to $150,000.


Statement of Need:


The change to these regulations is necessary to update the threshold 
amount of annual billing by CE providers that will trigger mandatory 
onsite review by DDS staff. The workload associated with the regulatory 
requirement to perform onsite reviews at the largest CE providers has 
increased substantially due to inflation since 1991. Therefore, mid-
tier and even smaller CE providers are now receiving mandatory onsite 
reviews. The change will restore the onsite review program to its 
intended purpose; to perform onsite review at the very large CE 
providers to ensure that those providers have facilities which meet SSA 
standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not raising the amount, but determined that requiring 
onsite review for all CE providers with billings of $100,000 or more is 
an unnecessary burden for State DDSs and does not provide better 
service to the public.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no additional costs. The change would lower the number of 
required onsite reviews. The expectation is the DDS personnel would 
have the flexibility to perform optional reviews and complete other 
higher priority work.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/20/07                    72 FR 13053
NPRM Comment Period End         05/21/07
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Chuck Urban
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9029

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG41
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



180.  SUSPENSION OF NEW CLAIMS TO THE FEDERAL REVIEWING 
OFFICIAL REVIEW LEVEL (3394F)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 
423(a); 42 USC 423(b); 42 USC 1381; 42 USC 1381a; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 
1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 405.10; 20 CFR 405, app to A; 20 CFR 405.240


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to suspend new claims going through the Federal reviewing 
official (FedRo) level now operating in the Boston region. We also 
proose to remove the Medical and Vocational Expert System (MVES), 
commonly known as the Office of Medical and Vocational Experise (OMVE) 
from the disability adjudication process for new claims. We are making 
these changes to improve our disability adjudication process. Lastly, 
we are requesting comments on using the MVES/OMVE to develop and manage 
a national registry of experts.


Statement of Need:


Workloads at the appellate have continued to grow, as have requests for 
review of appellate decisions. We expect further increases in the 
appellate workloads as the baby boom generation ages. These regulatory 
changes are necessary to make the appellate process more efficient and 
help us reduce backlogs, which have reached historic proportions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising these regulations; however, we believe that 
the current and anticipated backlogs of cases at the appeals levels of 
our adjudication process require this action. We are making these 
changes to ensure that we continually improve our disability 
adjudications process.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We estimate that this rule, will result in program savings of roughly 
$1.0 billion in OASDI benefit payments and cost of $0.1 billion in 
Federal SSI payments over the next 10 years.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/15/07                    72 FR 45701
NPRM Comment Period End         09/14/07
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James A Winn
Acting Deputy General Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0600

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG53

[[Page 69978]]

_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



181.  NONPAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO FUGITIVE FELONS AND PROBATION 
OR PAROLE VIOLATORS (2222F)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 403; 42 USC 404(a); 42 USC 404(e); 42 USC 405(a); 42 
USC 405(c); 42 USC 416(l); 42 USC 423(e); 42 USC 424a; 42 USC 425; 42 
USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1310(b); 42 USC 1320a-8a; 42 USC 1381a; 42 USC 
1382; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h(a); 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383c; 48 USC 
1681 note; 48 USC 1801


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.401; 20 CFR 404.475 NEW; 20 CFR 416.202; 20 CFR 416.1339


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


To implement section 203 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 
(SSPA), we will revise our regulation on the payment of Social Security 
and Supplemental Security Income benefits under titles II and XVI of 
the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 203 requires that title II 
benefits will not be paid to a person who is a fugitive felon or 
probation or parole violator, unless good cause is shown. Section 203 
also adds a good cause exception to the title XVI fugitive felon 
ineligibility provision. In addition, we will make other changes 
required by this legislation, such as removing the reference to high 
misdemeanors in the state of New Jersey. Finally, we will clarify our 
interpretation of the statutory language


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to clarify how we will implement 
section 203 of Public Law 108-203. We are codifying the statutory 
changes in our rules even though we have already implemented the 
statutory provisions by issuing instructions to claims adjudicators in 
our Program Operations Manual System. By incorporating the changes 
mandated by the law in our regulations our program rules and operating 
instructions will be consistent with the statute.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These changes are required by section 203 of the Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004.


Alternatives:


None--required by legislation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


At the time of enactment of section 203 of Public Law 108-203, we 
estimated that over the first 5 fiscal years after enactment, this 
provision would result in $309 million in OASDI program savings and 
would have a negligible impact on SSI program costs.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with this 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/05/05                    70 FR 72411
NPRM Comment Period End         02/03/06
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Gareth N. Dence
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9872

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
Related RIN: Previously reported as 0960-AG12
RIN: 0960-AG55
BILLING CODE 4191-02-S

[[Page 69979]]




CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting 
the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with 
consumer products. To achieve this goal, the Commission:
 develops mandatory product safety standards or banning rules 
            when other, less restrictive, efforts are inadequate to 
            address a safety hazard;
 obtains repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price 
            for defective products that present a substantial product 
            hazard;
 develops information and education campaigns about the safety 
            of consumer products; and
 staff participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
            product safety standards.
When deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, 
the Commission gathers the best available data about the nature and 
extent of the hazard presented by the product. The Commission then 
analyzes this information to determine the best way to reduce the 
hazard in each case. The Commission's rules require the Commission to 
consider, among other factors, the following criteria when deciding the 
level of priority for any particular project:
 frequency and severity of injury;
 causality of injury;
 chronic illness and future injuries;
 costs and benefits of Commission action;
 unforeseen nature of the risk;
 vulnerability of the population at risk;
 probability of exposure to the hazard.
Additionally, if the Commission proposes a mandatory safety standard 
for a particular product, the Commission is generally required to make 
statutory cost/benefit findings and adopt the least burdensome 
requirements that adequately protect the public.
The Commission's statutory authority requires it to rely on voluntary 
standards rather than promulgate a mandatory standard if there is a 
determination by the Commission that compliance with the voluntary 
standard is likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction 
of the risk of injury identified and it is likely that there will be 
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. As a result, much 
of the Commission's work involves cooperative efforts with other 
participants in the voluntary standard-setting process rather than 
promulgating mandatory standards.
In fiscal year 2008, the Commission's significant rulemaking activity 
will involve addressing risks of fire associated with ignition of 
upholstered furniture. The emphasis on this rulemaking activity in the 
Commission's FY 2008 regulatory plan is consistent with the 
Commission's statutory mandate and its criteria for setting priorities.
_______________________________________________________________________



CPSC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




182. FLAMMABILITY STANDARD FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


15 USC 1193, Flammable Fabrics Act; 5 USC 801


CFR Citation:


16 CFR 1640


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 23, 2003, the Commission issued an ANPRM to expand the scope 
of the ongoing upholstered furniture flammability proceeding to include 
both cigarette and small open flame-ignited fires. The staff developed 
a draft standard addressing both cigarette and small open flame 
ignition, and held public meetings in 2004 and 2005 to present and 
discuss the draft. On January 31, 2006, the staff sent a briefing 
package containing a revised draft standard and describing regulatory 
options to the Commission. The staff forwarded follow-up status reports 
on various technical research efforts in November 2006 and December 
2006. The staff continues to perform laboratory testing and other 
research to support a possible proposed rule.


CPSC staff is considering possible impacts of flame-retardant chemical 
use on human health and the environment. The CPSC staff has evaluated 
potential health risks associated with textile and foam filling 
material flame retardants. At the CPSC staff's request, the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studied potential worker 
exposure to and risks from certain flame-retardant chemicals that may 
be used by textile and furniture producers to comply with an 
upholstered furniture flammability standard. CPSC staff has also worked 
with the Environmental Protection Agency to (a) develop a significant 
new use rule (SNUR) for flame-retardant compounds used in residential 
upholstered furniture fabrics or fillings under that agency's Toxic 
Substances Control Act Authority, and (b) identify and encourage the 
use of environmentally-preferable flame retardants under a Design for 
the Environment industry/government partnership. The Design for the 
Environment report was published in September 2005. Further, at the 
CPSC staff's request, the National Toxicology Program of the Department 
of Health and Human Services is initiating health studies of several 
flame retardants for which toxicity data are lacking.


Statement of Need:


For 2001-2003, an annual average of approximately 4,000 residential 
fires in which upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite 
resulted in an estimated 330 deaths, 580 civilian injuries, and about 
$115 million in property damage that could be addressed by a 
flammability standard. The total annual societal cost attributable to 
these upholstered furniture fire losses was approximately $1.9 billion. 
This total includes fires ignited by small open-flame sources and 
cigarettes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) (15 U.S.C. 1193) 
authorizes the Commission to issue a flammability standard or other 
regulation for a product of interior furnishing if the Commission 
determines that such a standard is ``needed to adequately protect the 
public against unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to 
death or personal injury, or significant property damage.'' The 
Commission's regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one 
of which could be the development of a mandatory standard requiring 
that upholstered furniture sold in the United States meet mandatory 
labeling requirements, resist ignition, or meet other performance 
criteria under test conditions specified in the standard.

[[Page 69980]]

Alternatives:


(1) The Commission could issue a mandatory flammability standard if the 
Commission finds that such a standard is needed to address an 
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire from ignition of 
upholstered furniture; (2) the Commission could issue mandatory 
requirements for labeling of upholstered furniture, in addition to, or 
as an alternative to, the requirements of a mandatory flammability 
standard; and (3) the Commission could terminate the proceeding for 
development of a flammability standard and rely on a voluntary standard 
if a voluntary standard would adequately address the risk of fire and 
substantial compliance with such a standard is likely to result.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimated annual cost of imposing a mandatory standard to address 
ignition of upholstered furniture will depend upon the test 
requirements imposed by the standard and the steps manufacturers take 
to meet those requirements. Again, depending upon the test 
requirements, a standard may reduce cigarette and small open flame-
ignited fire losses, the annual societal cost of which was $1.9 billion 
for 2001-2003. Thus, the potential benefits of a mandatory standard to 
address the risk of ignition of upholstered furniture could be 
significant, even if the standard did not prevent all such fires.


Risks:


The estimated average annual cost to society from all residential fires 
associated with upholstered furniture was $1.9 billion for 2001-2003. 
Societal costs associated with upholstered furniture fires are among 
the highest associated with any product subject to the Commission's 
authority. A standard has the potential to reduce these societal costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/15/94                    59 FR 30735
Commission Hearing May 5 
    & 6, 1998 on Possible 
    Toxicity of Flame 
    Retardant Chemicals         03/17/98                    63 FR 13017
Meeting Notice                  03/20/02                    67 FR 12916
Notice of September 24 
    Public Meeting              08/27/03                    68 FR 51564
ANPRM                           10/23/03                    68 FR 60629
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/22/03
Staff Held Public Meeting       10/28/04
Staff Held Public Meeting       05/18/05
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               01/31/06
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               11/03/06
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               12/28/06
Staff Briefs Commission         12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dale R. Ray
Project Manager
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Directorate for Economic Analysis
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814-4408
Phone: 301 504-7704
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3041-AB35
BILLING CODE 6355-01-S

[[Page 69981]]




FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD (FHFB)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
 The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is an independent 
agency that is charged under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) 
with supervising and regulating the Nation's Federal Home Loan Bank 
(Bank) System. The Bank System comprises 12 regional cooperative Banks 
that are owned by their respective member financial institutions. The 
Banks provide wholesale credit to members and certain nonmembers to be 
used for mortgage lending and related community lending activities. The 
Banks also acquire mortgage assets from members as a means of advancing 
their housing finance mission. The Bank System also includes the Office 
of Finance, which issues Bank System consolidated obligations. The 
Finance Board is required to prepare a regulatory plan pursuant to 
section 4 of Executive Order 12866. At this time, the Finance Board 
does not anticipate taking any significant regulatory or deregulatory 
actions during 2008 that would be required to be included in a 
regulatory plan.
The Finance Board's highest regulatory priorities during 2008 continue 
to be to ensure the safety and soundness of the Bank System and to 
ensure that the Banks fulfill their housing finance and community 
investment mission. In furtherance of these statutory mandates, the 
Finance Board expects to consider regulations that will:
 Streamline the Finance Board's review of new business 
            activities proposed by a Bank to more clearly focus the 
            regulatory review process on ensuring that a new product, 
            service, or activity will not endanger the continued safe 
            and sound operation of the Bank.
 Streamline the community support requirements to eliminate 
            unnecessary regulatory burden, while preserving the 
            statutory intent of ensuring that members' access to long-
            term advances reflects such factors as their record of 
            performance under the Community Reinvestment Act and their 
            record of lending to first-time homebuyers.
 Streamline the regulations governing the Banks' acquired 
            member asset programs, to make the provisions less 
            prescriptive while preserving the key provisions relating 
            to safety and soundness and advancement of the Banks' 
            housing finance mission.
 Update the regulations relating to the capital structure of 
            the Banks to enhance their safety and soundness by ensuring 
            that the amount and composition of their capital is 
            appropriate in light of the risks undertaken in the course 
            of their lines of business.
 Improve the regulations relating to the investments made by 
            the Banks to coordinate with the repeal of the provisions 
            of the Financial Management Policy that currently govern 
            Bank investment portfolios.
BILLING CODE 6725-01-S

[[Page 69982]]




FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION (FMC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
 The Federal Maritime Commission's (Commission) regulatory objectives 
are guided by the Agency's vision statement. The Commission's vision is 
to administer the shipping statutes as effectively as possible to 
provide fairness and efficiency in the United States foreign maritime 
commerce. The Commission's regulations are designed to implement each 
of the statutes the Agency administers in a manner consistent with this 
vision in a way that minimizes regulatory costs, fosters economic 
efficiencies, and promotes international harmony.
 The Commission is in the process of a comprehensive review of 
Commission regulations to ensure alignment with emerging industry 
trends and business practices, particularly as they relate to ocean 
transportation intermediaries and vessel-operating common carriers. As 
a result, the Commission has initiated a rulemaking to reduce the time 
available for ocean transportation intermediary applicants to file the 
requisite proof of financial responsibility for licensing.
 The Commission continues to implement technological advancements to 
minimize regulatory costs and improve economic efficiencies in the 
ocean transportation intermediary licensing program. Toward this 
objective, the Commission has initiated a rulemaking to provide an 
optional method for filing an ocean transportation intermediary license 
application, Form FMC-18, through an automated filing system. The 
Commission anticipates that this system will be implemented in phases 
from late FY 2007 through early FY 2010 and plans future system 
enhancements such as e-bonds, e-payments and e-signatures.
 The Commission also oversees the financial responsibility of passenger 
vessel operators to indemnify passengers and other persons in cases of 
death or injury and to indemnify passengers for nonperformance of 
voyages. The Commission is presently evaluating the passenger vessel 
operator program, particularly with regard to passenger vessel 
financial responsibility requirements.
 The principal objective or priority of the Agency's current regulatory 
plan will be to continue to assess major existing regulations for 
continuing need, burden on the regulated industry, and clarity. The 
Commission also receives requests from the public seeking new 
regulations or modifications of existing regulations. If circumstances 
so warrant, the Commission on its own initiative, or upon request, will 
institute an appropriate rulemaking proceeding.
 The Commission's review of existing regulations exemplifies its 
objective to regulate fairly and effectively while imposing a minimum 
burden on the regulated entities, following the principles stated by 
the President in Executive Order 12866.
Description of the Most Significant Regulatory Actions
 The Commission currently has no actions under consideration that 
constitute ``significant regulatory actions'' under the definition in 
Executive Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6730-01-S

[[Page 69983]]




FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. REGULATORY PRIORITIES
Background
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent 
agency charged with protecting American consumers from ``unfair methods 
of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in the 
marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit 
from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is 
rooted in a belief that free markets work -- that competition among 
producers and information in the hands of consumers bring the best 
products at the lowest prices for consumers, spur efficiency and 
innovation, and strengthen the economy.
 The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different, but complementary, approaches. Fraud 
and deception injure both consumers and honest competitors alike and 
undermine competitive markets. Through its consumer protection 
activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers receive 
accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in the marketplace. 
At the same time, for consumers to have a choice of products and 
services at competitive prices and quality, the marketplace must be 
free from anticompetitive business practices. Thus, the second part of 
the Commission's basic mission--antitrust enforcement--is to prohibit 
anticompetitive mergers or other anticompetitive business practices 
without unduly interfering with the legitimate activities of 
businesses. These two complementary missions make the Commission unique 
insofar as it is the Nation's only Federal agency to be given this 
combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act and other statutes. In addition, the 
Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes. Pursuant to the FTC 
Act, for example, the Commission currently has in place fifteen trade 
regulation rules. The Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary 
industry guides. Most of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer 
protection matters and are generally intended to ensure that consumers 
receive the information necessary to evaluate competing products and 
make informed purchasing decisions.
Industry Self-Regulation and Compliance Partnerships With Industry
The Commission vigorously protects consumers through a variety of tools 
including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. To that end, 
it has encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a corporate 
leniency policy for certain rule violations, and established compliance 
partnerships where appropriate. The Commission has held workshops and 
issued reports that encourage industry self-regulation and compliance 
partnerships in several areas. As detailed below, privacy, information 
security, and information sharing continue to be at the forefront of 
the Commission's consumer protection program:
(a) The Federal Trade Commission staff hosted a workshop during October 
2007 that explored changes in the debt collection industry and examined 
their impact on consumers and businesses. The event brought together 
consumer advocates, industry representatives, State and Federal 
regulators, and others with relevant expertise to provide information 
on a range of issues, including the effects of technological, economic, 
and legal changes on the debt collection industry and whether the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other laws have kept pace 
with the developments.
(b) The Federal Trade Commission hosted a two-day public event, ``Spam 
Summit: The Next Generation of Threats and Solutions,'' in Washington, 
DC on July 11-12, 2007. The summit brought together experts from the 
business, government, and technology sectors, consumer advocates, and 
academics to explore consumer protection issues surrounding spam, 
phishing, and malware. This event followed earlier public workshops in 
2004 related to E-mail Authentication and Spyware. The Commission has 
actively encouraged the private sector to develop and implement 
technological solutions to the threats posed by spam and is encouraged 
by reports of increased use of domain level email authentication 
technologies.
(c) Much of the Commission's identity theft and data security program 
for the upcoming year will be drawn from the report and recommendations 
of the President's ID Theft Task Force, which Chairman Majoras co-
chairs with the Attorney General. See, http://www.idtheft.gov/reports/
StrategicPlan.pdf. In implementing the Task Force recommendations, the 
Commission is working with public-sector, private-sector, and consumer 
advocates to develop tools to thwart identity theft. During 2006, the 
Commission launched a nationwide identity theft education program, 
``Avoid ID Theft: Deter, Detect, Defend.''  See link at http://
www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/business/index.html. It includes 
direct-to-consumer brochures, as well as training kits and ready-made 
materials (including presentation slides and a video) for use by 
businesses and community groups to educate their employees and 
communities. On April 23-24, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission hosted 
a public workshop, ``Proof Positive: New Directions in ID 
Authentication,'' that explored methods to reduce identity theft 
through enhanced authentication. The workshop focused on technological 
and policy requirements for developing better authentication processes, 
including the incorporation of privacy standards and consideration of 
consumer usability issues.
Recognizing that Social Security Numbers (SSNs) are often used to 
commit identity theft, the Commission and other Task Force agencies are 
developing a record on the uses of SSNs in the private sector, the 
necessity of those uses, alternatives available, the challenges faced 
by the private sector in moving away from using SSNs, and how SSNs are 
obtained and used by identity thieves. The Commission also plans to 
host a public forum on the issue in the near future. Following other 
recommendations from the President's Identity Theft Task Force, the 
Commission is undertaking a multi-faceted project to educate private 
businesses on best practices for protecting and securing sensitive 
personal information, including conducting regional workshops, 
producing and distributing a variety of print and online materials. 
Commission staff also are pursuing a number of data security 
investigations, continuing training of law enforcement on investigating 
identity theft crimes, and promoting improved assistance for victims of 
identity theft.
(d) During April 2007, the Commission hosted a public workshop, ``The 
Rebate Debate,'' that discussed consumers' perspectives on rebates and 
challenges businesses face when they offer rebates, and explored ``best 
practices'' in the offering and fulfillment of rebates.

[[Page 69984]]

Participants included consumer advocates, government officials, 
business representatives, and other parties involved in the rebate 
process.
(e) On November 6-9, 2006, the Federal Trade Commission hosted hearings 
on ``Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade.'' The FTC brought 
together experts from the business, government, and technology sectors, 
consumer advocates, academicians, and law enforcement officials to 
explore the ways in which convergence and the globalization of commerce 
impact consumer protection. These hearings examined changes that have 
occurred in marketing and technology over the past decade, and garnered 
experts' views on upcoming challenges and opportunities for consumers, 
businesses, and governmental bodies. One of the issues explored at the 
hearings was ``behavioral advertising,'' whereby advertisers analyze 
consumers' online activities and provide advertising identified as 
relevant to their interests. On November 1-2, 2007, the Commission held 
a ``town hall'' public meeting that examined the privacy implications 
of behavioral advertising in more depth.
(f) To encourage better cybersecurity practices, the Commission has 
partnered with other agencies and the technology industry to launch a 
website called OnGuardOnline.gov, which provides practical tips from 
the Federal Government and the technology industry to help consumers 
guard against Internet fraud, secure their computer, and protect their 
personal information. The Commission recently added a publication there 
called ``Botnets and Hackers and Spam (Oh, My!)'', to help consumers 
and small businesses prevent criminals from tracking their Internet 
surfing, stealing personal information, and turning the computers into 
spam ``zombies'' that are part of a ``botnet'' made up of thousands of 
home computers through which spammers route spam. The FTC also released 
a new business education guide that articulates the key steps that are 
part of a sound data security plan. Protecting Personal Information: A 
Guide for Business, available at: http://www.ftc.gov/infosecurity.htm. 
Other business publications on data security and responding to data 
breaches are available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/
idtheft.htm.
(g) The Commission has also encouraged active industry self-regulation 
in the broadband industry, which includes Internet Service Providers 
and other Internet infrastructure entities. See Broadband Connectivity 
Competition Report: A Federal Trade Commission Staff Report (June 27, 
2007), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/broadband/
v070000report.pdf. Self-regulation, for example, might take the form of 
voluntary industry-wide disclosure guidelines that would standardize 
the definitions of relevant terms and conditions of broadband access 
services. A more comprehensive approach to address the myriad consumer 
protection issues facing the industry may be necessary. Moreover, any 
program of self-regulation is more effective when complemented by 
strong enforcement mechanisms.
(h) The Commission has also undertaken efforts to educate consumers and 
industry about the risks associated with downloading and using peer-to-
peer file-sharing (P2P) software programs. The FTC has two consumer 
education pieces concerning this topic: 1) a consumer alert (originally 
published in 2003 but updated and renamed in December 2006). See P2P 
File-Sharing: Evaluate the Risks, available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/
edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt128.shtm (this alert has been accessed over 
1.3 million times); and 2) OnguardOnline.gov, the FTC's general 
Internet education website, which contains downloadable information 
about the risks of P2P file-sharing software, including quick facts 
about P2P file-sharing, an interactive quiz, and additional lessons, 
resources, and activities from i-SAFE, an organization involved in 
Internet-safety education. In addition, in a June 2005 report, the FTC 
staff encouraged implementation of industry proposals regarding risk 
disclosures and the staff has continued to monitor this area. See Peer-
to-Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition 
Issues Staff Report Federal Trade Commission (June 2005), available at: 
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/p2p05/050623p2prpt.pdf. FTC staff's reviews 
have confirmed that the major P2P file-sharing programs have steadily 
improved their risk disclosures. The FTC will continue to work with 
industry to enhance risk disclosures and to educate consumers.
 In other areas, like the entertainment industry, the Commission has 
encouraged industry groups to improve their self-regulatory programs to 
discourage the marketing to children of violent R-rated movies, Mature-
rated electronic games, and music labeled with a parental advisory. The 
motion picture, electronic game and music industries have each 
established self-regulatory systems that rate or label products in an 
effort to help parents seeking to limit their children's exposure to 
violent materials. Since 1999, the Commission has issued six reports on 
these three industries, examining compliance with their own voluntary 
marketing guidelines.
In April 2007, the Commission issued the latest of a series of reports 
on entertainment industry practices. Although the Commission found that 
violent R-rated movies and M-rated games were still being advertised on 
television shows and Web sites with large teen audiences, the 
Commission's review revealed that these industries continue to comply, 
for the most part, with their self-regulatory limits on ad placement. 
Because the music labeling system is not age-based, the industry has no 
specific restrictions on advertising explicit-content labeled music in 
media popular with children. In addition, the FTC found that while 
video game retailers have made significant progress in limiting sales 
of M-rated games to children, movie and music retailers have made only 
modest progress limiting such sales.
For the first time, the Commission tracked trends in viral marketing, 
including social networking sites such as MySpace, and viral video 
sites like YouTube. The report also flagged a new trend in gaming, 
mobile phone games, and noted several challenges they pose. The report 
recommended that all three industries consider adopting new, or 
tightening existing, target marketing standards. It also suggested 
retailers further implement and enforce point-of-sale policies 
restricting sales of rated or labeled material to children under 17. In 
particular, the report suggested the movie industry examine whether 
marketing and selling of unrated or ``Director's Cut'' DVD versions of 
R-rated movies, which may contain content that could warrant an even 
more restrictive rating, undermines the current self-regulatory system.
The report also suggested that the music industry provide more 
information on packaging and in advertising about why certain 
recordings receive a Parental Advisory. Finally, the report recommended 
that the video game industry place content descriptors on the front of 
product packaging and conduct research on why many parents believe that 
the system could do a better job of informing them about the level of 
violence in some

[[Page 69985]]

games. See Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent Entertainment to 
Children: A Fifth Follow-Up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion 
Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries A Report to 
Congress (April 2007), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/
violence/070412MarketingViolentEChildren.pdf. Following a reasonable 
period of monitoring industry practices and consumer concerns, the 
Commission plans to issue another report.
The Commission has encouraged three alcohol industry trade 
associations; the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, the 
Beer Institute, and the Wine Institute; to develop and implement 
voluntary advertising codes governing the placement and content of 
alcohol advertising. In particular, the Commission encourages self-
regulatory efforts that reduce the likelihood that alcoholic beverage 
advertising will be directed, by its content or placement, at youth. In 
its report, Federal Trade Commission, Alcohol Marketing and Advertising 
A Report to Congress (Sept. 2003), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/
2003/09/alcohol08report.pdf, the Commission announced that industry had 
adopted a new advertising placement standard, and the Commission made 
additional recommendations about efforts to facilitate code compliance. 
In January 2007, the Commission issued compulsory process orders to the 
12 largest alcohol suppliers, seeking information regarding industry 
compliance with the revised codes adopted in 2003, as well as industry 
response to additional recommendations contained in the 2003 report. 
The Commission staff is reviewing the company submissions made in 
response to the compulsory process orders. Upon completion of that 
review, staff will prepare a report reflecting its findings. The agency 
anticipates releasing the report in late 2007.
The Commission also launched an alcohol consumer education program, 
http://www.dontserveteens.gov, in October 2006. The program 
communicates the message that responsible adults do not serve alcohol 
to teens because it is unsafe, irresponsible, and illegal. It includes 
a website, television and radio public service announcements and print 
material to be posted in alcohol retail outlets. The Commission has 
joined with public and private partners to spread this message. The 
week of September 10, 2007, was ``We Don't Serve Teens Week.'' It 
featured a variety of events held nationwide to focus attention on this 
important message.
To address concerns about the Nation's growing childhood obesity 
problem, the Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) held a one-day forum on food marketing self-regulation. See 
Weighing In: A Check-Up on Marketing, Self-Regulation, & Childhood 
Obesity (July 2007) (materials available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/
workshops/childobesity/index.shtml). The purpose of the forum was to 
allow members of the food and media industries and self-regulatory 
groups to report on their progress in implementing initiatives 
addressing food and beverage marketing to children that respond to the 
agencies' recommendations in a 2006 joint report entitled, Perspectives 
on Marketing, Self-Regulation, and Childhood Obesity. This report was 
the product of a joint FTC-HHS workshop in July 2005 that brought 
together a wide range of speakers to examine ways, including self-
regulation, to promote competition among food manufacturers to produce 
and promote healthier food choices for children.
As noted in the 2006 report, the Commission plans to monitor closely 
industry progress on the recommendations. To this end, the Commission 
has issued compulsory process orders to 44 food and beverage marketers 
to obtain information on their marketing activities and expenditures 
targeted to children and adolescents. The Commission will use the 
information to prepare a report requested by Congress.
Additionally, the Commission continues to apply the Textile Corporate 
Leniency Policy Statement for minor and inadvertent violations of the 
Textile or Wool Rules that are self-reported by the company. 67 FR 
71566 (Dec. 2, 2002). Generally, the purpose of the Textile Corporate 
Leniency Policy is to help increase overall compliance with the rules 
while also minimizing the burden on business of correcting (through 
relabeling) inadvertent labeling errors that are not likely to cause 
injury to consumers. Since the Textile Corporate Leniency Program was 
announced, 116 companies have been granted ``leniency'' for self-
reported minor violations of FTC textile regulations.
Finally, the Commission also has engaged industry in compliance 
partnerships in at least two areas involving the funeral and franchise 
industries. Specifically, the Commission's Funeral Rule Offender 
Program, conducted in partnership with the National Funeral Directors 
Association, is designed to educate funeral home operators found in 
violation of the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR part 453, so that they can meet 
the rule's disclosure requirements. Approximately 247 funeral homes 
have participated in the program since its inception in 1996. In 
addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule Alternative Law 
Enforcement Program in partnership with the International Franchise 
Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization that represents both 
franchisors and franchisees. This program is designed to assist 
franchisors found to have a minor or technical violation of the 
Franchise Rule, 16 CFR part 436, in complying with the rule. Violations 
involving fraud or other Section 5 violations are not candidates for 
referral to the program. The IFA teaches the franchisor how to comply 
with the rule and monitors its business for a period of years. Where 
appropriate, the program will offer franchisees the opportunity to 
mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since December 1998, 
twenty companies have agreed to participate in the program.
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
The Congress has enacted several laws requiring the Commission to 
undertake rulemakings and studies. These include at least 14 new 
rulemakings and eight studies required by the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-159 (FACTA or the FACT Act); 
the rulemakings and reports required by the Controlling the Assault of 
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-
187 (CAN-Spam Act); the rulemaking pursuant to the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation Improvements Act of 1991, Pub. L.No. 102-242; 
model privacy notices under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; and a report 
assessing the implementation of the Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act. The Final Actions section below describes any final 
actions taken on the rulemakings.
The Commission has already issued most of the rules required by FACTA. 
These rules are codified in several parts of 16 CFR 600 et seq. The 
active FACTA rulemakings include the following:
(1) Credit Bureau Charge for Credit Scores--The Commission was required 
to determine a fair and reasonable fee to be charged by a consumer 
reporting

[[Page 69986]]

agency for providing the credit score information required under FACTA. 
On November 8, 2004, the Commission issued an NPRM on reasonable fees 
for credit scores. 69 FR 64,698. The comment period ended on January 5, 
2005. Staff has reviewed comments and is considering what action is 
appropriate.
(2) Furnisher Rules--The Commission is required, in coordination with 
the banking agencies and National Credit Union Administration, to issue 
guidelines and rules concerning the accuracy of information furnished 
to consumer reporting agencies, and rules relating to the ability of 
consumers to dispute information directly with furnishers of 
information. The Commission and the other agencies issued an ANPRM for 
public comment on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14419). The comment period 
closed on May 22, 2006. The agencies have assessed the comments, and 
hope to publish proposed rules by November 2007.
(3) Affiliate Marketing Rule--The Commission, along with the banking 
agencies, the NCUA, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
is required to issue rules to implement the Act's provisions allowing 
consumers to opt out of marketing by affiliates. The Commission issued 
an NPRM on June 15, 2004 (69 FR 33324). The extended comment period 
closed on August 16, 2004. The agencies reviewed the comments, and 
published a final rule on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61424).
(4) Identity Theft Red Flags Rules--The Commission is also required to 
jointly promulgate with the banking agencies and the NCUA identity 
theft ``red flag'' guidelines and rules to implement these guidelines 
(the ``ID theft red flag rule'') and an address change rule (the 
``address change rule''). The ID theft red flag rule would, among other 
things, require card issuers to investigate requests for card changes. 
The address change rule would require credit report users to 
investigate when the address on a credit report differs from the 
address on a credit application. The agencies jointly published 
proposed rules on July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40786). The comment period 
closed on September 18, 2006. The agencies reviewed the comments and 
issued a final rule on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63718).
(5) Risk Based Pricing Rule--The Commission jointly with the Federal 
Reserve expects to publish a risk-based pricing proposal for comment by 
the end of 2007. This statutorily-required rulemaking would address the 
form, content, time, manner, definitions, exceptions, and model of a 
risk-based pricing notice.
During July 2007, the Federal Trade Commission released a FACTA-
required report presenting the results of a study concerning credit-
based insurance scores and automobile insurance. See Credit Based 
Insurance Scores: Impacts on Consumers of Automobile Insurance: A 
Report to Congress By the Federal Trade Commission (July 2007) 
available at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/07/facta.shtm. The study 
found that these scores are effective predictors of the claims that 
consumers will file. It also determined that, as a group, African-
Americans and Hispanics tend to have lower scores than non-Hispanic 
whites and Asians. Therefore, the use of scores likely leads to 
African-Americans and Hispanics paying relatively more for automobile 
insurance than non-Hispanic whites and Asians. Credit-based insurance 
scores are calculated based on a consumer's credit history information. 
Insurance companies use them to predict the claims that consumers are 
likely to file, and to determine the premiums they are charged.
The FDICIA assigns to the Commission responsibilities for certain non-
federally insured depository institutions (``DIs'') and private deposit 
insurers of such DIs. The FTC is required to prescribe by regulation or 
order, the manner and content of certain disclosures required of DIs 
that lack Federal deposit insurance. From 1993-2003, the Commission was 
statutorily barred annually from appropriating funds for purposes of 
complying with FDICIA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 and 
subsequent such yearly appropriations have not imposed the same funding 
prohibition and the Commission issued an NPRM on March 16, 2005. 70 FR 
12823. The comment period closed on June 15, 2005. Staff is reviewing 
comments and expects to forward a recommendation to the Commission by 
the end of 2007.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the Commission to complete two 
rulemakings while authorizing other discretionary rulemaking actions. 
The statute directed the Commission to issue labeling requirements 
within 18 months of enactment for ceiling fans concerning the 
electricity used by the fans to circulate air in a room. After notice 
and comment, the Commission published a final rule of ceiling fan 
labeling on December 28, 2006, to be effective on January 1, 2009. 71 
FR 78057. The statute also mandated that the Commission initiate a 
rulemaking examining the effectiveness of the energy efficiency related 
consumer product labeling program (also known as the appliance labeling 
effectiveness rulemaking). Further, the Commission was required to 
complete this rulemaking within two years of enactment. After notice 
and comment, the Commission announced a final rule for appliance 
labeling effectiveness on August 7, 2007, to be effective on February 
29, 2008. 72 FR 49947 (Aug. 29, 2007).
 Pursuant to Section 728 of the Financial Services Relief Act of 2006, 
P. L. No.109-351, which added section 503(e) to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
Act (or GLB Act), the Commission together with seven other Federal 
agencies \1\ are directed to propose a model form that may be used at 
the option of financial institutions for the privacy notices required 
under GLB. The 2006 amendment provided that the agencies must propose 
the model form within 280 days after enactment, or by April 11, 2007. 
On March 29, 2007, the GLB agencies issued an NPRM proposing as the 
model form the prototype privacy notice developed during the consumer 
testing research project undertaken by first six, and then seven of 
these agencies. 72 FR 14940. Staff of the agencies are reviewing the 
comments and expect to take action by August 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The agencies are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the 
National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2007, the Commission issued a statutorily mandated 
report to Congress assessing the implementation of the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act, enacted in 1998 to address privacy and 
security risks created when children under 13 years of age are online. 
See http://www.ftc.gov/reports/coppa/07COPPA--Report--to--Congress.pdf. 
The Commission concluded that the Children's Online Privacy Protection 
Act (COPPA), and the Commission's COPPA Rule, which went into effect in 
April 2000, have been effective in protecting the privacy and security 
of young children online without unduly burdening Web site operators. 
The report did not recommend any changes to COPPA or to the 
Commission's Rule, but did note that, because widespread age 
verification technology is not

[[Page 69987]]

available, age falsification remains a risk on general audience Web 
sites not intended for children's use. The report also identified 
social networking sites and mobile Internet access as new and emerging 
issues in children's online privacy.
Ten-Year Review Program
 In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and 
guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned after 
provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 USC 601-612. Under the 
Commission's program, rules have been reviewed on a ten-year schedule 
as resources permit. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent 
reviews than is generally required by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review 
contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides 
the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking 
information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and 
whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic 
effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.'' 5 USC 610. The program's goal is to ensure 
that all of the Commission's rules and guides remain in the public 
interest. It complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121. This program is consistent with the 
Administration's ``smart'' regulation agenda to streamline regulations 
and reporting requirements and section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, 
58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
As part of its continuing ten-year review plan, the Commission examines 
the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the 
marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or 
rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer 
protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the 
least cost to business. In a number of instances, the Commission has 
determined that existing rules and guides were no longer necessary nor 
in the public interest. As a result of the review program, the 
Commission has repealed 48 percent of its trade regulation rules and 57 
percent of its guides since 1992.
Calendar Year 2006-07 Reviews
Most of the matters currently under review pertain to consumer 
protection and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the 
information necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed 
purchasing decisions. During late 2007, the Commission announced its 
ten-year schedule of review and that it would initiate the review of 
two rules and one guide during 2007: (1) the Mail or Telephone Order 
Merchandise Rule, (the Mail Order Rule), 16 CFR part 435, (2) the Guide 
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (the Fuel 
Economy Guide), 16 CFR part 259, and (3) Guides for Select Leather and 
Imitation Leather Products (the Leather Guides), 16 CFR part 24. 71 FR 
78390 (Dec. 29, 2006).
 For the Mail Order Rule, the Commission issued a Federal Register 
notice on September 11, 2007 requesting comments on whether to retain 
or amend the Rule. Issued in 1975, and last amended in 1995, the rule 
requires that, when sellers advertise merchandise, they must have a 
reasonable basis for stating or implying that they can ship within a 
certain time. The Commission also seeks comments about non-substantive 
changes to the rule to bring it into conformity with changing 
conditions; including consumers' usage of means other than the 
telephone to access the Internet when ordering, consumers paying for 
merchandise by demand draft or debit card, and merchants using 
alternative methods to make prompt rule-required refunds. The comment 
period closes on November 7, 2007.
 For the Fuel Economy Guide, the Commission issued a request for 
comments on May 9, 2007, on whether to retain or amend the Rule. 72 FR 
72328. The Fuel Economy Guide was adopted in 1975 to prevent deceptive 
fuel economy advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy 
information in advertising. The Commission sought comments on, among 
other things, whether there is a continuing need for the Guide and, if 
so, what changes should be made to it, if any, in light of the recent 
Environmental Protection Agency amendments to fuel economy labeling 
requirements for automobiles. Comments were accepted through July 23, 
2007.
 Finally, the Commission also issued a request for comments relating to 
the Leather Guides on May 23, 2007. 72 FR 28906. The Leather Guides, 
which were adopted in 1996, address misrepresentations regarding the 
composition and characteristics of certain leather and imitation 
leather products, and state that disclosure of non-leather content 
should be made for material that appears to be leather but is not 
leather. The Federal Register notice contains a brief overview of the 
Leather Guides, as well as questions that seek comment on the 
continuing need for the Guides, their economic impacts and benefits, 
whether they should be modified, possible conflicts between the Guides 
and other laws, changes in consumer perceptions and preferences, and 
the effect that changes in technology, economic conditions, or 
environmental conditions have had on the Guides. The comment period 
closed on July 23, 2007. Staff plans to make recommendations to the 
Commission by early 2008.
Ongoing Reviews
 (a) Rules
 The Commission staff is continuing its review of several rules and 
guides. First, for the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR part 310, 
the Commission issued a revised NPRM on October 4, 2006, proposing to 
make explicit that the TSR's call abandonment prohibition bars sellers 
and telemarketers from delivering a prerecorded message when a person 
answers a telemarketing call, except in the very limited circumstances 
permitted in the call abandonment safe harbor and when a consumer has 
consented, in writing, to receive such calls. The revised NPRM also 
proposes to change the method for measuring the maximum allowable call 
abandonment rate in the call abandonment safe harbor provision from ``3 
percent per day per calling campaign'' to ``3 percent per 30-day period 
per calling campaign.'' The Commission also announced it would not 
create a new safe harbor for prerecorded messages and would end its 
previously announced forbearance policy permitting such messages 
effective January 2, 2007. 71 FR 65762 (Oct. 4, 2006) (revised NPRM); 
69 FR 67287 (Nov. 17, 2004) (initial NPRM). Then, on December 18, 2006, 
in response to four petitions requesting an extension of the 
forbearance policy, the Commission announced that the forbearance 
policy should remain in effect until the conclusion of the prerecorded 
call amendment proceeding. 71 FR 77634 (Dec. 27, 2006). The Commission 
expects to issue a final rule on the TSR call abandonment proceeding by 
the end of 2007.
 Second, the proposed Business Opportunities Rule stems from the 
recently concluded review of the Franchise Rule, where staff 
recommended that the Franchise Rule be split into two parts; one part 
addressing franchise issues and one part addressing business 
opportunity issues.

[[Page 69988]]

Thereafter, the Commission published an NPRM seeking comments on the 
proposed Business Opportunities Rule. 71 FR 19054 (Apr. 12, 2006). This 
proposed rule would address fraud in the offer and sale of business 
opportunity ventures by requiring business opportunity sellers to 
furnish specific pre-sale disclosures to prospective purchasers, as 
well as prohibiting specific conduct that the rulemaking record and the 
Commission's law enforcement experience show are prevalent problems. 
The NPRM comment period ended on July 17, 2006, and the rebuttal 
comment period was extended to September 29, 2006. Staff anticipates 
publishing a report by the end of 2007.
 Third, for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules (HSR 
Rules), Bureau of Competition staff is continuing to review various HSR 
Rule provisions. Staff anticipates sending its recommendation to the 
Commission regarding a proposed exemption for acquisitions of 10% or 
less of an issuer's voting securities by the end of 2007.
 Fourth, for the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, 16 C.F.R. 
455, the Commission anticipates issuing a notice seeking comments on 
whether to retain or amend the rule by late 2007. Effective in 1985 and 
last reviewed in 1995, this Rule sets out the general duties of a used 
vehicle dealer, requiring that a completed Buyers Guide be posted at 
all times on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for sale. 
Dealers must disclose on the Buyers Guide whether the vehicle is 
covered by a warranty, and if so, the type and duration of the warranty 
coverage, or whether the vehicle is being sold ``as is--no warranty.'' 
The information in the Buyers Guide also becomes part of the sales 
contract, and overrides any contrary provisions contained in the 
contract, under the FTC rule. The rule also prohibits the used vehicle 
dealer from making statements contrary to those on the label.
 Fifth, for the Rules on the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the CAN-SPAM Act Rules), the 
Commission issued an NPRM on May 12, 2005, that proposed rule 
provisions on five discretionary topics: (1) defining the term 
``person,'' a term used repeatedly throughout the Act but not defined 
there; (2) modifying the definition of ``sender'' to make it easier to 
determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single e-mail 
message will be responsible for complying with the Act's ``opt-out'' 
requirements; (3) clarifying that Post Office boxes and private 
mailboxes established pursuant to United States Postal Service 
regulations constitute ``valid physical postal addresses'' within the 
meaning of the Act; (4) shortening from ten days to three the time a 
sender may take before honoring a recipient's opt-out request; and (5) 
clarifying that to submit a valid opt-out request, a recipient cannot 
be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-
mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than 
sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page. 
70 FR 25426. The comment period closed on June 27, 2005, and staff 
anticipates sending a final recommendation to the Commission by late 
2007.
 Sixth, the Commission began its regulatory review of certain aspects 
of the Funeral Industry Practices Rule (Funeral Rule), 16 CFR part 453, 
in 1999. The Funeral Rule, which became effective in 1984, and was 
amended in 1994, requires providers of funeral goods and services to 
give consumers itemized lists of funeral goods and services that state 
prices and descriptions and also contain specific disclosures. The rule 
enables consumers to select and purchase only the goods and services 
they want, except for those that may be required by law and a basic 
services fee. Also, funeral providers must seek authorization before 
performing some services, such as embalming. In addition to an 
assessment of the rule's overall costs and benefits and continuing need 
for the rule, the review is examining whether changes in the funeral 
industry warrant broadening the scope of the rule to include non-
traditional providers of funeral goods or services and revising or 
clarifying certain prohibitions in the rule. 64 FR 24250 (May 5, 1999). 
A public workshop conference was subsequently held to explore issues 
raised in the comments submitted. Staff expects to forward its 
recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2007.
 Seventh, the Commission's review of the Pay-Per-Call Rule, 16 CFR part 
308, is continuing. The Commission has held workshops to discuss 
proposed amendments to this rule, including provisions to combat 
telephone bill ``cramming''--inserting unauthorized charges on 
consumers' phone bills--and other abuses in the sale of products and 
services that are billed to the telephone including voicemail, 900-
number services, and other telephone based information and 
entertainment services. The most recent workshop focused on discussions 
of the use of 800 and other toll-free numbers to offer pay-per-call 
services, the scope of the rule, the dispute resolution process, the 
requirements for a pre-subscription agreement, and the need for 
obtaining express authorization from consumers before placing charges 
on their telephone bills. The review record has remained open to 
encourage additional comments on questions related to expansion of the 
rule's coverage. Staff anticipates forwarding its recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2007.
 Eighth, the Commission's review of the Regulations Under the 
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Smokeless 
Regulations), 16 CFR part 307, is ongoing. The Smokeless Regulations 
govern the format and display of statutorily-mandated health warnings 
on all packages and advertisements for smokeless tobacco. In fiscal 
year 2000, the Commission undertook its periodic review of the 
Smokeless Regulations to determine whether the Regulations continue to 
effectively meet the goals of the Act and to seek information 
concerning the Regulations' economic impact in order to decide whether 
they should be amended. Staff is currently assessing the public 
comments and anticipates forwarding its recommendations to the 
Commission in late 2008.
 (b) Guides
 After issuing a staff advisory opinion indicating that the 
Commission's current Guides for Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter 
Industries,16 CFR part 23, did not address descriptions of new platinum 
alloy products, the Commission issued a Request for Public Comments on 
whether the platinum section of the Guides for Jewelry, Precious Metals 
and Pewter Industries, should be amended to provide guidance on how to 
non-deceptively mark or describe products containing between 500 and 
850 parts per thousand pure platinum and no other platinum group 
metals. 70 FR 38834 (July 6, 2005). After an extension, the comment 
period closed on October 12, 2005. This fall, the Commission will issue 
a notice seeking comment on proposals to amend the platinum section of 
the Guides to address the new platinum alloys and anticipates further 
action sometime during 2008.
 On January 16, 2007, the Commission requested public comment on the 
overall costs, benefits, and regulatory

[[Page 69989]]

and economic impact of its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements 
and Testimonials in Advertising, as part of the agency's systematic 
review of all current regulations and guides. The Commission also 
released consumer research it commissioned regarding the messages 
conveyed by consumer endorsements, and sought comment both on this 
research and upon several other specific endorsement-related issues. 72 
FR 2214 (Jan. 18, 2007). The initial comment period ended on March 19, 
2007, but was subsequently extended to June 18, 2007. 72 FR 13051 (Mar. 
20, 2007). In 2008, the Commission may seek comment on proposed 
revisions or updates to the Guides.
 In addition, the Commission anticipates issuing a notice requesting 
comments on the Statement of General Policy or Interpretations under 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (also known as FCRA Commentary) by 
October 2008.
Final Actions
 Since publication of the 2006 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 
taken final actions on several rulemakings. First, in the review of the 
Franchise Rule, 16 CFR part 436, the Commission announced on January 
22, 2007, it was retaining that rule while updating it to account for 
new technologies and to provide prospective franchisees with more 
disclosure about the nature of the franchise relationship, while 
minimizing the discrepancies between Federal and State law. 72 FR 15444 
(March 30, 2007). The amended rule has a phased-in effective date which 
will be fully effective on July 1, 2008.
 Second, the Commission has completed its regulatory review of and has 
decided to retain the Rule relating to Test Procedures and Labeling 
Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 311, There were no changes except 
for revised incorporation by reference language to the most recently 
published edition of American Petroleum Institute Publication 1509, the 
Fifteenth Edition. Last reviewed in 1995, and amended in 2004, this 
rule requires manufacturers of recycled oil to use certain test 
procedures and to meet specified labeling requirements for containers 
of recycled or ``re-refined'' oil intended for use as engine oil.
 Finally, the Commission announced that it was retaining the Guides for 
the Nursery Industry, 16 CFR part 18, in their current form with one 
typographical correction. 72 FR 901 (Jan. 9, 2007). Adopted in 1979 and 
last reviewed in 1994, the Guides address a number of sales practices 
for outdoor plants, trees and flowers and prohibit deception as to such 
things as size, grade, age, condition, price, origin or the place where 
the products were grown.
Summary
 In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed regulatory 
actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The actions 
under consideration inform and protect consumers and reduce the 
regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will continue working 
toward these goals. The Commission's ten-year review program is 
patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996. The Commission's ten-year program also is consistent with section 
5(a) of EO 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993), which directs executive 
branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of 
their significant existing regulations. In addition, the final rules 
issued by the Commission continue to be consistent with the President's 
Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles, EO 12866, section 
1(a), which directs agencies to promulgate only such regulations as 
are, inter alia, required by law or are made necessary by compelling 
public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or 
improve the health and safety of the public.
 The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits 
of proposed actions and possible alternative actions, and to receive 
the broadest practicable array of comment from affected consumers, 
businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the Commission's 
regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly promoting the 
ability of ``private markets to protect or improve the health and 
safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the 
American people.'' EO 12866, section 1.
Rulemakings that Respond to Public Regulatory Reform Nominations
 During March 2002, OMB requested public nominations for regulatory 
reforms. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
conducted a preliminary review of the public comments received and 
found five FTC activities that one or more commenters had nominated for 
reform. In a March 7, 2003 letter, the FTC responded that the agency 
systematically reviews all regulations and guides on a ten-year basis 
and explained how the agency had already reviewed or was about to 
review the activity at issue or why some of the other activities were 
not good candidates for reform as contemplated by the Smarter 
Regulations Report. In 2004, OIRA requested recommendations for reform 
in the manufacturing sector. OIRA received two nominations for FTC 
action but determined not to include them in the Report to Congress on 
agency responses to reform nominations in the manufacturing sector.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The two nominations were 1) a comment concerning the DOE and FTC 
requirements for reporting water usage (the FTC's response indicated 
that the agencies have accepted the requested data based on third party 
reports since 1993); and 2) a comment that the DOE, FTC and EPA should 
work with industry to streamline duplicative energy labels (the FTC's 
response noted that since 2000, where appropriate, manufacturers have 
been allowed to place the Energy Star logo on EnergyGuide Labels and 
noted that the two labels provide different information to the 
consumer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. REGULATORY ACTIONS
 The Commission has one proposed rule that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866. 
Under FACTA, the Commission is required to jointly promulgate with the 
banking agencies (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision) and 
the NCUA guidelines for financial institutions and creditors 
identifying patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity, that 
indicate the possible existence of identity theft. The agencies are 
also required to issue joint regulations that provide guidance 
regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of a consumer 
report should employ when the user receives a notice of address 
discrepancy.
On November 9, 2007, after notice and comment, the Agencies jointly 
issued final rules and guidelines implementing section 114 of the FACT 
Act and final rules implementing section 315 of the FACT Act (72 FR 
63718). The rules implementing section 114 require each financial 
institution or creditor to develop and implement a written Identity 
Theft Prevention Program (Program) to detect, prevent, and mitigate 
identity theft in connection with the opening of certain accounts or 
certain existing accounts. In addition, the Agencies issued guidelines 
to assist financial institutions and creditors in the formulation and 
maintenance of a Program that satisfies the requirements of the rules. 
The rules implementing section 114 also require credit and debit

[[Page 69990]]

card issuers to assess the validity of notifications of changes of 
address under certain circumstances. Additionally, the Agencies issued 
joint rules under section 315 that provide guidance regarding 
reasonable policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports must 
employ when a consumer reporting agency sends the user a notice of 
address discrepancy. The joint final rules and guidelines are effective 
January 1, 2008. The mandatory compliance date for this rule is 
November 1, 2008.
_______________________________________________________________________



FTC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




183. FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT OF 2003

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 108-159, 117 Stat 1952


CFR Citation:


16 CFR 602; 16 CFR 603; 16 CFR 604; 16 CFR 610; 16 CFR 611; 16 CFR 613; 
16 CFR 614; 16 CFR 682; 16 CFR 698; . . .


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 31, 2003, Effective Date for FACTA 
Provisions Affecting FCRA and State Laws.


Final, Statutory, February 11, 2004, Rules Specifying Effective Dates 
of FACTA Provisions Where Statute Does Not Specify Dates.


Final, Statutory, March 3, 2004, Rules Prohibiting Consumer Reporting 
Agencies From Circumventing FACTA Provisions.


Final, Statutory, June 3, 2004, Rules Concerning Free Consumer Credit 
Reports.


Final, Statutory, September 4, 2004, Rules Allowing Consumers To Opt 
Out of Marketing by Affiliates.


Abstract:


The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the FACT Act or 
FACTA or the Act) was enacted on December 4, 2003. The Act requires 
that the Commission undertake a number of rulemakings and studies.


EFFECTIVE DATES --


The FACT Act required that the FTC, together with the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve), jointly 
adopt the effective dates of portions of the statute where the 
effective dates are not prescribed within 2 months of enactment of the 
Act. On December 24, 2003, the Federal Reserve and the FTC jointly 
adopted Interim Final Rules that established December 31, 2003, as the 
effective date for provisions of the Act that determine the 
relationship between the Fair Credit Reporting Act and State laws and 
provisions that authorize rulemakings or other implementing actions by 
agencies (68 FR 74467). On December 24, 2003, the Federal Reserve and 
FTC also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) requesting 
comments and specifying the effective dates for the other provisions of 
the FACT Act for which the statute does not specify an effective date 
(68 FR 74529). On February 11, 2004, the Commission and the Federal 
Reserve published joint final rules that established a schedule of 
effective dates for many of the provisions of the FACT Act for which 
the Act itself did not specifically provide an effective date. The 
Agencies also made final what had previously been interim; namely, 
establishing December 31, 2003, as the effective date for provisions of 
the Act that determine the relationship between the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act and State laws and provisions that authorize rulemakings 
or other implementing actions by agencies (69 FR 6526).


CREDIT REPORTS AND RELATED ISSUES --


The FACT Act requires that the Commission adopt rules concerning credit 
reports and credit scores and related issues. Most of the proceedings 
are to be conducted jointly with the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
Office of Thrift Supervision (the banking agencies), and the National 
Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The rulemaking mandates are 
detailed below.


Circumvention --


With respect to Credit Reports, the Act requires that the Commission 
issue rules by March 3, 2004, on preventing corporate and technological 
circumvention of the obligations imposed on nationwide consumer 
reporting agencies. On February 24, 2004, the FTC published an interim 
final rule prohibiting consumer reporting agencies from avoiding 
treatment as nationwide consumer reporting agencies and requested 
comments on this measure (69 FR 8532). The interim final rule became 
effective on March 3, 2004, and the comment period closed on April 23, 
2004. Staff has reviewed the comments and is considering what 
additional action is appropriate.


Free Credit Reports --


The FACT Act required that the Commission issue rules concerning: (1) A 
centralized source for free consumer reports by nationwide consumer 
reporting agencies and nationwide specialty consumer reporting 
agencies; (2) the provision of free credit reports by nationwide 
consumer reporting agencies and nationwide specialty consumer reporting 
agencies; and (3) a streamlined process for consumers to obtain free 
credit reports from specialized bureaus. On March 19, 2004, the 
Commission requested comments on a proposed rule that would establish a 
centralized source, a standardized form, and a streamlined process 
through which consumers may request a free annual file disclosure from 
each nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency (69 FR 13192). On 
June 24, 2004, the Commission published a final rule effective on 
December 1, 2004, for the provision of free reports to consumers, 
including (1) A central source whereby consumers can make one request 
and receive their consumer report from each of the three major 
nationwide consumer reporting agencies and (2) rules with respect to 
the provision of free consumer reports by ``nationwide specialty 
consumer reporting agencies,'' as defined in new FCRA section 603(w) 
(69 FR 35468).


Use of Consumer Information by Affiliates for Marketing Purposes --


The Commission, along with the banking agencies, the NCUA, and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is required to issue rules to 
implement the Act's provisions allowing consumers to opt out of 
marketing by affiliates. The Commission issued an NPRM on June 15, 2004 
(69 FR 33324). The extended comment period closed on August 16, 2004. 
The agencies reviewed the comments and published a final rule on 
October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61424).


Enhancement of Opt Out Notice (Prescreen Rule) --


The Commission, in consultation with the banking agencies and the NCUA, 
was also required to issue rules concerning the enhancement of notices 
to consumers about their right to opt out of prescreened solicitations. 
FACTA calls for these notices to be presented

[[Page 69991]]

in a format and in a type, size, and manner that is simple and easy to 
understand. The Commission published an NPRM on October 1, 2004 (69 FR 
58861), and subsequently published the final rule on January 31, 2005 
(70 FR 5022). The prescreen rule was effective on August 1, 2005.


Disposal of Credit Report Information --


By December 4, 2004, the Commission was required, in coordination with 
the banking agencies, NCUA, and the SEC, to issue rules concerning the 
proper disposal of credit report information and records. On April 20, 
2004, the Commission published an NPRM and Request for Comments (69 FR 
21388). The Commission and the other agencies published a Final 
Disposal Rule on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68690). The Disposal Rule was 
effective on June 1, 2005.


Credit Bureau Charge for Credit Scores --


The Commission is authorized to determine a fair and reasonable fee 
that consumer reporting agencies may charge for disclosure of credit 
scores. On November 8, 2004, the Commission issued an ANPRM seeking 
comments on rules effecting fair and reasonable fees for credit scores 
(69 FR 64698). The comment period closed on January 5, 2005, and the 
staff has reviewed comments and is considering what action is 
appropriate.


Furnisher Rules --


The Commission is required, in coordination with the banking agencies 
and NCUA, to issue guidelines and rules concerning the accuracy of 
information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and rules 
relating to the ability of consumers to dispute information directly 
with furnishers of information. The Commission and the other agencies 
issued an ANPRM for public comment on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14419). The 
comment period closed on May 22, 2006. The agencies have assessed the 
comments, and expect to publish proposed rules by November 2007.


Other Required and Discretionary Actions on Credit Reports and Related 
Issues --


With respect to credit reports and related issues, the Act requires the 
Commission jointly with the Federal Reserve to issue rules addressing 
the form, content, time, manner, definitions, exceptions, and model of 
the risk-based pricing notice. The agencies expect to publish a risk-
based pricing proposal for public comment during 2007. Finally, the 
Commission may issue rules regarding the compilation and submission to 
nationwide consumer reporting agencies of all complaints of inaccurate 
or incomplete files and the treatment of medical information in credit 
reporting agency files.


IDENTITY THEFT --


The FACT Act requires that the Commission adopt rules concerning 
identity theft and related issues. Some of the proceedings are to be 
conducted jointly (or in consultation) with the banking agencies and 
the NCUA. The rulemaking mandates are detailed below.


Summary of Rights --


The Act requires the Commission to promulgate a summary of consumers' 
identity theft rights and to mount a public education campaign 
regarding consumers' new identity theft rights. The Commission issued 
the proposed summary of consumers' identity theft rights on July 16, 
2004 (69 FR 42616). The Commission issued the final model summary on 
November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69776).


Definitions --


FACTA requires the Commission to define certain terms that are relevant 
to consumers' new identity theft rights (``Identity Theft Definitions 
Rule'') and to promulgate in a rule the length of time for active duty/
military alerts. On April 28, 2004, the Commission published an NPRM 
proposing rules that would establish definitions for ``identity theft'' 
and ``identity theft report``; the duration of an ''active duty 
alert``; and the ''appropriate proof of identity`` for purposes of 
sections 605A (fraud alerts and active duty alerts), 605B (consumer 
report information blocks), and 609(a)(1) (truncation of Social 
Security numbers) of the FCRA, as amended by the FACT Act (69 FR 
23370). The Commission published an Identity Theft Definitions Rule on 
November 3, 2004 (69 FR 63922).


Model Forms and Procedures --


FACTA also requires the Commission in consultation with the banking 
agencies and the NCUA to develop a model form and procedures to be used 
by identity theft victims for contacting and informing creditors and 
consumer reporting agencies of the fraud. On April 27, 2005, the 
Commission issued notice of its publication of guidance containing such 
model forms and procedures (70 FR 21792). This guidance, ``Take Charge: 
Fighting Back Against Identity Theft,'' is available at www.ftc.gov/
bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft or by writing to FTC, Consumer Response 
Center, Room 130-B, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.


Red Flags --


The Commission is also required to jointly promulgate with the banking 
agencies and the NCUA identity theft ``red flag'' guidelines and rules 
to implement these guidelines (the ``ID theft red flag rule'') and an 
address change rule (the ``address change rule''). The ID theft red 
flag rule would, among other things, require card issuers to 
investigate requests for card changes. The address change rule would 
require credit report users to investigate when the address on a credit 
report differs from the address on a credit application. The agencies 
jointly published proposed rules on July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40786). The 
comment period closed on September 18, 2006. The agencies reviewed the 
comments and issued a final rule on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63718).


MISCELLANEOUS --


On May 20, 2004, the Commission issued a final rule effective on June 
21, 2004, making technical changes to earlier rules, establishing a 
general organizational scheme for subchapter F of chapter I of title 16 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, and setting forth general 
provisions applicable to all FTC rules under the FCRA (69 FR 29061).


Statement of Need:


Identity Theft Red Flags--The Federal Trade Commission is charged with 
enforcing the requirements of sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and 
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e) 
and 1681c(h)(2)), which require the Agency to issue these regulations 
jointly with other Agencies.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The objective of the proposed regulations is to establish guidelines 
for financial institutions and creditors identifying patterns, 
practices, and specific forms of activity, that indicate the possible 
existence of identity theft. In addition, the proposed regulations 
require credit and debit card issuers to establish policies and 
procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request. They 
also set out requirements for policies and procedures that a user of 
consumer reports must employ when such a user receives a notice of 
address discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency

[[Page 69992]]

described in section 603(p) of the FCRA. The legal basis for the 
proposed regulations is 15 U.S.C. 1681m(e) and 1681c(h)(2).


Alternatives:


The standards in the proposed Rule are flexible, and take into account 
a covered entity's size and sophistication, as well as the costs and 
benefits of alternative compliance methods. Nevertheless, the 
Commission sought comment and information on the need, if any, for 
alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory 
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such 
small entities, including the need, if any, to delay the rule's 
effective date to provide additional time for small business 
compliance. If the comments filed in response to this notice identify 
small entities that are affected by the rule, as well as alternative 
methods of compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the rule 
on such entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such 
alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the 
final rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Addressing identity theft in these circumstances will not only benefit 
customers, but will also benefit the financial institution or creditor, 
and any person (who has no relationship with the financial institution 
or creditor) whose identity has been misappropriated. The requirements 
will involve some increased costs for affected parties. Most of these 
costs will be incurred by those required to draft identity theft 
programs and annual reports. There will also be costs associated with 
training, and for credit and debit card issuers to establish policies 
and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request. 
In addition, there will be costs related to developing reasonable 
policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports must employ 
when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a consumer 
reporting agency, and for furnishing an address that the user has 
reasonably confirmed is accurate. The Commission does not expect, 
however, that the increased costs associated with regulations will be 
significant.


Risks:


The risks of identity theft to a customer may include: financial, 
reputation, and litigation risks that occur when another person uses a 
customer's account fraudulently, such as by using the customer's credit 
card account number to make unauthorized purchases. The risks of 
identity theft to the safety and soundness of the financial institution 
or creditor may include: compliance, reputation, or litigation risks 
for failure to adequately protect customers from identity theft; 
operational and financial risks from absorbing losses to customers who 
are the victims of identity theft; or losses to the financial 
institution or creditor from opening an account for a person engaged in 
identity theft. Addressing identity theft in these circumstances would 
not only benefit customers, but would also benefit the financial 
institution or creditor, and any person (who has no relationship with 
the financial institution or creditor) whose identity has been 
misappropriated. Nevertheless, the proposed requirements are drafted in 
a flexible manner that allows entities to develop and implement 
different types of programs based upon their size, complexity, and the 
nature and scope of their activities. As a result, the FTC staff 
expects that the burden on these low risk entities will be minimal 
(i.e., not significant).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Joint Interim Final Rules 
    (Effective Date FACT 
    Act Provisions)             12/24/03                    68 FR 74467
NPRM (Effective Date FACT 
    Act Provisions)             12/24/03                    68 FR 74529
Joint Final Rules 
    (Effective Date FACT 
    Act Provisions)             02/11/04                     69 FR 6526
Interim Final Rule/
    Request for Comments 
    (Prohibition Against 
    Circumvention)              02/24/04                     69 FR 8532
NPRM/Request for Comments 
    (Free Annual Credit 
    File Disclosures)           03/19/04                    69 FR 13192
Final Rule (Free Annual 
    Credit File 
    Disclosures)                06/24/04                    69 FR 35468
NPRM - Request for 
    Comments (Affiliate 
    Marketing)                  06/15/04                    69 FR 33324
Comment Period Extended 
    (Affiliate Marketing)       07/21/04                    69 FR 43546
NPRM (Prescreen Opt Out 
    Disclosure)                 10/28/04                    69 FR 58861
Final Rule (Prescreen Opt 
    Out Disclosure)             01/31/05                     70 FR 5022
NPRM - Request for 
    Comments (Disposal of 
    Consumer Report 
    Information)                04/20/04                    69 FR 21388
Final Rule (Disposal of 
    Consumer Report 
    Information)                11/24/04                    69 FR 68690
Effective Date for 
    Disposal Rule               05/01/05
ANPRM (Credit Score Fees)       11/08/04                    69 FR 64698
Comment Period Ended 
    (Credit Score Fees)         01/05/05
Proposed Summaries and 
    Notices (Model 
    Disclosures for 
    Identity Theft 
    Rights)                     07/16/04                    69 FR 42616
Final Action (Model 
    Disclosures for 
    Identity Theft 
    Rights)                     11/30/04                    69 FR 69776
Effective Date (Model 
    Disclosures for 
    Identity Theft 
    Rights)                     01/31/05
Notice of Publication 
    (Guidance for 
    Identity Theft 
    Victims)                    04/27/05                    70 FR 21792
NPRM (Identity Theft 
    Definitions Rule)           04/28/04                    69 FR 23370
Final Rule (Identity 
    Theft Definitions 
    Rule)                       11/03/04                    69 FR 63922
Effective Date (Identity 
    Theft Definitions 
    Rule)                       12/01/04
Final Rule (Miscellaneous 
    Technical Amendments)       05/20/04                    69 FR 29061
ANPRM (Furnisher Accuracy 
    and Dispute Rules)          03/22/06                    71 FR 14419
ANPRM Comment Period End 
    (``Furnisher Rules'')       05/22/06
NPRM (Identity Theft 
    ``Red Flags'' and 
    ``Address Changes'' 
    Rules)                      07/18/06                    71 FR 40786
NPRM Comment Period End 
    (``Red Flags and 
    Address Change'' 
    Rules)                      09/18/06
Final Rule (Affiliate 
    Marketing)                  10/30/07                    72 FR 61424
NPRM (Furnisher Rules)          11/00/07
Final Rule (``Red Flags 
    and Address 
    Changes'')                  11/09/07                    72 FR 63718
NPRM (Risk Based Pricing 
    Rule)                       01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 69993]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
Attorney
Federal Trade Commission
Bureau of Consumer Protection
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20580
Phone: 202 326-3208
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3084-AA94
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[[Page 69994]]




NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or the Act), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the 
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). The stated purpose of the 
NIGC is to regulate the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means 
of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. It is the NIGC's intention to provide regulation of 
Indian gaming to adequately shield it from organized crime and other 
corrupting influences, to ensure that each Indian tribe is the primary 
beneficiary of its gaming operation(s), and to assure that gaming is 
conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players.
 The regulatory priorities for the next fiscal year reflect the NIGC's 
commitment to uphold the principles of IGRA. The gaming industry 
changes rapidly with advancements in machine technology. It is crucial 
for the vitality of Indian gaming that regulators have the ability to 
respond quickly to these changes. To that end, the NIGC has decided 
that the development of technical standards and game classifications 
for gaming machines and related gaming systems is an important 
initiative for the promotion and protection of tribal gaming.
 The NIGC has been innovative in using active outreach efforts to 
inform its policy development and its rulemaking efforts. For example, 
the NIGC has had great success in using regional meetings, both formal 
and informal, with tribal governments to gather views on current and 
proposed NIGC initiatives. The NIGC anticipates that these 
consultations with regulated tribes will continue to play an important 
role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




184. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR GAMING MACHINES AND GAMING SYSTEMS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706(b)(10)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 547


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to 
promulgate regulations establishing technical standards in order to 
assure the integrity of electronic equipment used with the play of 
class II games. Technical standards will address actual operation of 
gaming machines and systems and the equipment related to their 
operation.


Statement of Need:


Technical standards are needed to assure machine games are operated in 
a manner that ensures uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Summary of Legal Basis:


It is the goal of NIGC to provide regulation of Indian gaming to shield 
it from organized crime and other corrupting influences as well as 
assuring that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly. (25 U.S.C. 
2702). The Commission is charged with the responsibility of monitoring 
gaming conducted on Indian lands. (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)). The Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act expressly authorizes the Commission to 
``promulgate such regulations and guidelines as it deems appropriate to 
implement the provisions of the (Act).`` (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10)). The 
Commission relies on these sections of the statute to authorize the 
promulgation of technical standards for gaming machines to ensure 
uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Alternatives:


If the Commission does not issue a rule establishing technical 
standards for gaming machines, tribal gaming will not have the benefit 
of a standard that can help promote the integrity of the equipment in 
class II gaming.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The development of technical standards will reduce the cost of 
regulation to the Federal Government. Additionally, technical standards 
will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their gaming 
activities as well as prevent loss associated with defective or 
substandard gaming devices. The only anticipated cost will be to gaming 
machine manufacturers.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/11/06                    71 FR 46336
NPRM Withdrawn                  02/09/07                     72 FR 7360
NPRM                            11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Michael Gross
Senior Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA29
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC



185. GAME CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706(b)(10); 25 USC 2702


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 546; 25 CFR 502.8


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to 
promulgate regulations establishing game classification standards 
because of the distinction between class II and class III gaming set 
forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Technical changes 
make it difficult for regulators to keep up with the gaming industry. 
By establishing classification standards and clarifying the definition 
of ``electronic or electromechanical facsimile,'' tribal gaming 
commissions, the primary regulators of tribal gaming, will more easily 
be able to distinguish between class II and class III machines.

[[Page 69995]]

Statement of Need:


Gaming classification standards are needed to assure that regulators 
can determine whether gaming machines are class II or class III devices 
under IGRA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


It is the goal of NIGC to provide regulation of Indian gaming to shield 
it from organized crime and other corrupting influences as well as 
assuring that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly. (25 U.S.C. 
2702). The Commission is charged with the responsibility of monitoring 
gaming conducted on Indian lands. (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)). IGRA 
expressly authorizes the Commission to ``promulgate such regulations 
and guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of 
the (Act).'' (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10)). The Commission relies on these 
sections of the statute to authorize the promulgation of technical 
standards for game classifications and for gaming machines to ensure 
uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Alternatives:


The Commission can either: (1) Issue a rule establishing game 
classifications and gaming machines, or (2) continue evaluating 
classifications on a case-by-case basis.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The development of classification standards will reduce the cost of 
regulation to the Federal Government. Additionally, classification 
standards will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their gaming 
activities. There are anticipated costs to gaming machine manufacturers 
and tribal governments. The NIGC is conducting a cost/benefit analysis.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (definition for 
    electronic or 
    electromechanical 
    facsimile)                  05/25/06                    71 FR 30232
NPRM (main)                     05/25/06                    71 FR 30238
NPRM Withdrawn                  02/09/07                     72 FR 7359
NPRM                            11/00/07
NPRM (definition for 
    electronic or 
    electromechanical 
    facsimile)                  11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
John Hay
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
Suite 9100
1441 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3141-AA31
BILLING CODE 7565-01-S

[[Page 69996]]




POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION (PRC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA or the Act) was 
signed into law on December 20, 2006. This law gives the Postal Service 
additional tools to meet the challenges of changing markets, and a new 
authority to price its own products. It reaffirms the Postal Service's 
role as a government service whose primary mission remains providing 
universal postal services at affordable rates. Among other things, the 
PAEA re-established the Postal Rate Commission as the Postal Regulatory 
Commission (PRC or Commission). The PAEA gave the Commission enhanced 
responsibilities and authority to meet the challenges of the new law. 
It is the intention of the Commission to use its enhanced authority to 
ensure accountability and transparency of the Postal Service to the 
public it serves.
In fiscal year 2008, the Commission's significant rulemaking activity 
will involve a comprehensive review of its current regulations to 
ensure alignment with the PAEA. Many of its regulations will be 
rewritten to comply with the mandates of the Act. Due to strict 
statutory deadlines mandated in the PAEA, the Commission's principal 
regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2008 are: (1) to develop and 
implement regulations that design a new, modern system of rate 
regulation for market dominant products, and (2) to develop and 
implement regulations to bound the Postal Service's discretion in 
setting rates for competitive products. The Commission, in connection 
with the Postal Service's stakeholders, has begun meeting these 
challenges and will continue to do so well into fiscal year 2008.
_______________________________________________________________________



PRC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




186.  SYSTEM OF RATE REGULATION FOR MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 109-435, sec 201; 39 USC 3622


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 20, 2008, Statutory deadline for issuance.


Congress has given the Commission 18 months from the date of enactment 
of PL 109-435 to issue rules establishing a modern system of rate 
regulation.


Abstract:


On February 5, 2007, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking to begin a proceeding to implement a modern system 
for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products as 
required by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This system 
of regulations will address the standards for compliance with the 
objectives, factors, and requirements discussed in the PAEA.


Statement of Need:


A modern system of regulating rates and classes for market dominant 
products is required by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. 
Congress tasked the Postal Regulatory Commission with the job of 
implementing that system. This system of regulations is the 
Commission's implementation of that Congressional directive.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act section 201 states that 
``the Postal Regulatory Commission shall . . . by regulation establish 
(and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a modern 
system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products.''


Alternatives:


There are no alternative methods of complying with the requirements of 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act section 201 other than by 
issuing regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The streamlined modern system of rate regulation for market dominant 
products is expected to reduce litigation costs for the Postal Service 
and its stakeholders. It is also expected to give the Postal Service 
more pricing flexibility and less volatility in ratemaking than under 
prior law.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           02/05/07                     72 FR 5230
ANPRM Comment Period End        04/06/07
ANPRM Reply Comment 
    Period End                  05/07/07
Second ANPRM                    05/25/07                    72 FR 29284
Second ANPRM Comment 
    Period End                  06/18/07
Second ANPRM Reply 
    Comment Period End          07/03/07
NPRM                            09/04/07                    72 FR 50744
NPRM Comment Period End         09/24/07
NPRM Reply Comment Period 
    End                         10/09/07
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.prc.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.prc.gov

Agency Contact:
Stephen L. Sharfman
General Counsel
Postal Regulatory Commission
Suite 200
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20268-0001
Phone: 202 789-6820
Fax: 202 789-6861
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3211-AA02
_______________________________________________________________________



PRC



187.  COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 109-435, sec 202; 39 USC 3633


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 20, 2008, Statutory deadline for issuance.


Congress has given the Commission 18 months from the date of enactment 
of

[[Page 69997]]

PL 109-435 to promulgate rules dealing with competitive products.


Abstract:


On February 5, 2007, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking to begin a proceeding to ensure that competitive 
products contribute their fair share to the Postal Service's finances 
as required by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. These 
regulations will address the technical standards for ensuring that 
these statutory requirements are met.


Statement of Need:


The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act directs the Commission to 
promulgate regulations to appropriately bound the Postal Service's 
discretion in setting rates for competitive products. This system of 
regulations is the Commission's implementation of that Congressional 
directive.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act section 202 directs that 
``the Postal Regulatory Commission shall . . . promulgate (and may from 
time to time thereafter revise) regulations'' to ensure that 
competitive products contribute their fair share to the Postal 
Service's finances.


Alternatives:


There are no alternative methods of complying with the requirements of 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act section 202 other than by 
issuing regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The competitive products regulations are expected to make sure that the 
Postal Service is an effective competitor in the marketplace and that 
it has appropriate tools to carry out this task. The regulations are 
expected to reduce litigation costs for the Postal Service and its 
stakeholders and give more pricing flexibility and less volatility in 
ratemaking than under prior law.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           02/05/07                     72 FR 5230
ANPRM Comment Period End        04/06/07
ANPRM Reply Comment 
    Period End                  05/07/07
Second ANPRM                    05/25/07                    72 FR 29284
Second ANPRM Comment 
    Period End                  06/18/07
Second ANPRM Reply 
    Comment Period End          07/03/07
NPRM                            09/04/07                    72 FR 50744
NPRM Comment Period End         09/24/07
NPRM Reply Comment Period 
    End                         10/09/07
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.prc.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.prc.gov

Agency Contact:
Stephen L. Sharfman
General Counsel
Postal Regulatory Commission
Suite 200
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20268-0001
Phone: 202 789-6820
Fax: 202 789-6861
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3211-AA03
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S
