[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 64137]]



                INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2009 REGULATORY PLAN

                It is . . . the policy of the United States that . . . 
                agencies shall prioritize actions based on a full 
                accounting of both economic and social benefits and 
                costs and shall drive continuous improvement by 
                annually evaluating performance, extending or expanding 
                projects that have net benefits, and reassessing or 
                discontinuing under-performing projects.

                         Executive Order 13514 on Environmental,

                         Energy, and Economic Performance

                         (Oct. 5, 2009)

                Some of the nation's most important policies are 
                implemented through regulation. In domains as diverse 
                as energy efficiency, environmental protection, health 
                care, occupational safety, civil rights, 
                communications, homeland security, and many more, the 
                government attempts to protect its citizens through 
                regulations.

                In a memorandum signed on January 30, 2009, President 
                Obama emphasized that as a result of many years of 
                experience, ``Far more is now known about regulation - 
                not only about when it is justified, but also about 
                what works and what does not.'' He explicitly directed 
                the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
                Peter Orszag, to evaluate the regulatory review process 
                and, among other things, to ``clarify the role of the 
                behavioral sciences in formulating regulatory policy'' 
                and ``identify the best tools for achieving public 
                goals through the regulatory process.''

                Director Orszag has written that behavioral economics 
                is ``one of the most important intellectual 
                developments of the past several years. . . . By taking 
                the insights of psychology and observed human behavior 
                into account, we now have a fuller picture of how 
                people actually behave - instead of just reducing them 
                to the hyper-rational utility-maximizers of Econ 101.''

                A behavioral approach to regulation is straightforward. 
                It draws on evidence of people's actual behavior. It 
                favors approaches that are clear, simple, and easy to 
                understand. It attempts to ensure that regulations will 
                have good consequences.

                These goals have many implications for regulatory 
                policy. In the domain of savings for retirement, 
                consider these words from the President's Fiscal Year 
                2010 Budget:

                ``Research has shown that the key to saving is to make 
                it automatic and simple. Under this proposal, employees 
                will be automatically enrolled in workplace pension 
                plans--and will be allowed to opt out if they choose. . 
                . . Experts estimate that this program will 
                dramatically increase the savings participation rate 
                for low and middle-income workers to around 80 
                percent.''

                In September 2009, the President expanded on this theme 
                by offering a series of initiatives for increasing 
                automatic enrollment. He said, ``We know that automatic 
                enrollment has made a big difference in participation 
                rates

[[Page 64138]]

                by making it simpler for workers to save - and that's 
                why we're going to expand it to more people.''

                In many other domains, it is possible to promote 
                regulatory goals by selecting the appropriate default 
                rules. And where it is not possible or best to change 
                the default, we can have a similar effect merely by 
                easing and simplifying people's choices. Several of the 
                rules discussed in this Plan reflect this aspiration. 
                One such rule, involving hazard communication to 
                workers and proposed by the Occupational Safety and 
                Health Administration in 2009, is expected to increase 
                simplicity, to reduce costs, and at the same time to 
                save dozens of lives each year.

                In the same vein, the Administration is taking a series 
                of steps toward simplifying the Free Application for 
                Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), reducing the number of 
                questions and allowing electronic retrieval of 
                information. Use of a simpler and shorter form is 
                accompanied by measures designed to permit online users 
                to transfer data previously supplied electronically on 
                their tax forms directly onto their FAFSA application.

                To achieve regulatory goals, it is important to 
                understand that people are often affected by the 
                behavior of their peers: If people learn that they are 
                using more energy than similarly situated others, their 
                energy use declines - saving money while also reducing 
                pollution. In the domain of seatbelt usage, real change 
                occurred as regulation worked hand-in-hand with 
                emerging social norms. The Administration is well aware 
                that if safety is to increase significantly on the 
                highways, it must be in part because of social norms 
                that discourage distracted driving (and other risky 
                behavior). In October 2009, the President issued an 
                Executive Order banning texting while driving by 
                Federal employees; the Department of Transportation is 
                embarking on a range of initiatives to reduce 
                distracted driving.

                Scientific integrity is critically important, in the 
                sense that regulators cannot decide how to proceed 
                without having a sense of what is known and what 
                remains uncertain. Of course some risks are large and 
                others are small. Some regulations are burdensome and 
                some are not. Some regulations have unintended bad 
                consequences; others have unintended good consequences.

                In his January 30, 2009, memorandum, President Obama 
                pointed to the importance of ``a dispassionate and 
                analytical `second opinion' on agency actions.'' He 
                also asked the Director of OMB to address the role of 
                three factors that are not always fully included in 
                cost-benefit analysis: the interests of future 
                generations; distributional considerations; and 
                fairness. If regulation is to be data-driven and 
                evidence-based, it must include, rather than neglect, 
                the concerns of future generations.

                Many of the regulations in this Plan reflect these 
                concerns. In particular, environmental regulations, 
                designed to combat the risks associated with climate 
                change, are attentive to the interests of future 
                generations and those who are least well-off. The 
                Administration has recently developed interim figures 
                for the social cost of carbon-figures that have been 
                used for several different regulations in this Plan, 
                involving energy efficiency in vending machines and 
                greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The 
                figures are based in part on a recognition of the well-
                established view that a high discount rate for long-
                term damage could lead to action that might harm future 
                generations.

                In addition, President Obama has placed a great deal of 
                emphasis on open government. In his first weeks in 
                office, he quoted the words of Supreme

[[Page 64139]]

                Court Justice Louis Brandeis: ``Sunlight is said to be 
                the best of disinfectants.'' President Obama explained 
                that ``accountability is in the interest of the 
                Government and the citizenry alike.'' He emphasized 
                that ``[k]nowledge is widely dispersed in society, and 
                public officials benefit from having access to that 
                dispersed knowledge.'' President Obama has stressed 
                that transparency can ensure that data is available to 
                all - and with available data, we can greatly improve 
                our practices.

                The Environmental Protection Agency has built on these 
                ideas with its Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule, requiring 
                disclosure by the most significant emitters. The data 
                will allow businesses to track their own emissions and 
                compare them to similar facilities; it will also 
                provide assistance in identifying cost-effective ways 
                to reduce emissions in the future.

                All this is merely a start. For example, the Executive 
                Order on environmental, economic, and energy 
                performance will attempt to track progress in meeting 
                crucial goals - including greenhouse gas emissions 
                reductions - and disclose both costs and benefits to 
                the public.

                Regulatory decisions often require complex tradeoffs, 
                especially in the current economic environment. We are 
                committed to ensuring that those tradeoffs reflect the 
                best available information, respect scientific 
                integrity, and benefit from public participation - and 
                are rooted in a clear and transparent understanding of 
                the human consequences.

                        Cass R. Sunstein

                        Administrator

                        Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

[[Page 64141]]


                                                                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                National Organic Program: Access to Pasture                                                                 0581-AC57 Final Rule Stage
2                National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Final Rule on Amendments to the Order                        0581-AC87 Final Rule Stage
3                Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds                                                         0579-AC02    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
4                Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Bovines and Bovine Products                                0579-AC68    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
5                Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not                  0579-AC03 Final Rule Stage
                 Authorized for Importation Pending Risk Assessment
6                Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act                                                            0580-AB07       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
7                Poultry Contracts; Initiation, Performance, and Termination                                              0580-AA98    Final Rule Stage
8                Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation and         0584-AD87       Proposed Rule
                 Energy Act of 2008                                                                                                               Stage
9                Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Farm Bill of 2008 Retailer Sanctions                          0584-AD88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
10               Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program                                                                        0584-AD96       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
11               Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity                               0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
12               SNAP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of          0584-AD30    Final Rule Stage
                 2002
13               Quality Control Provisions                                                                               0584-AD31    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               Egg Products Inspection Regulations                                                                         0583-AC58    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
16               Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval                                                      0583-AC59    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
17               Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry                0583-AD28       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
18               New Poultry Slaughter Inspection                                                                         0583-AD32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
19               Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements for Inspected Establishments                 0583-AD34       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
20               Mandatory Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products                                                     0583-AD36       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
21               Electronic Foreign Import Certificates and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)               0583-AD39       Proposed Rule
                 Requirements for Official Import Establishments                                                                                  Stage
22               Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable Service and Flexibility in the         0583-AD41       Proposed Rule
                 Requirements for Official Export Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates                                                     Stage
23               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
24               Federal-State Interstate Shipment Cooperative Inspection Program                                         0583-AD37    Final Rule Stage
25               Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative--Section 9009                                                   0570-AA77       Prerule Stage
26               Grants for Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities in Rural Areas--      0570-AA72       Proposed Rule
                 Section 6023                                                                                                                     Stage
27               Biorefinery Assistance Program--Section 9003                                                             0570-AA73       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
28               Rural Business Re-Powering Assistance--Section 9004                                                      0570-AA74       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
29               Rural Business Contracts for Payments for the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels--Section 9005      0570-AA75       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
30               Rural Energy for America Program--Section 9007                                                           0570-AA76       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
31               Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program--Section 6022                                                 0570-AA71    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 64142]]


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32               Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan                                       0648-AW72       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
33               Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program                                                0648-AX13       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
34               Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported or Unregulated         0648-AV51    Final Rule Stage
                 Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources
35               Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions and Interjurisdictional              0648-AW38    Final Rule Stage
                 Fisheries Act Disaster Assistance Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36               Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP)                                                                      0790-AI58    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37               Teacher Incentive Fund--Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria                    1810-AB08       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
38               School Improvement Grants--Notice of Proposed Requirements Under the American Recovery and               1810-AB06    Final Rule Stage
                 Reinvestment Act of 2009; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
39               Investing in Innovation--Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria                   1855-AA06       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40               Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors                                                  1904-AB70       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
41               Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers                                               1904-AB93    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42               Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; Modifications to the HIPAA        0991-AB57       Proposed Rule
                 Privacy Rule Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act                                        Stage
43               Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and              0991-AB58    Final Rule Stage
                 Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology
44               Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics                             0910-AC52    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
45               Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices                                                          0910-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
46               Produce Safety Regulation                                                                                0910-AG35       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
47               Modernization of the Current Food Good Manufacturing Practices Regulation                                0910-AG36       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 64143]]

 
48               Infant Formula: Current Good Manufacturing Practices; Quality Control Procedures; Notification           0910-AF27    Final Rule Stage
                 Requirements; Records and Reports; and Quality Factors
49               Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements                                             0910-AF86    Final Rule Stage
50               Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect         0910-AG33    Final Rule Stage
                 Children and Adolescents
51               Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program (CMS-0033-P)                                            0938-AP78       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
52               Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Part B for CY 2011 (CMS-1503-P)       0938-AP79       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
53               Proposed Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and      0938-AP80       Proposed Rule
                 FY 2011 Rates and to the Long-Term Care Hospital PPS and RY 2011 Rates (CMS-1498-P)                                              Stage
54               Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center             0938-AP82       Proposed Rule
                 Payment System for CY 2011 (CMS-1504-P)                                                                                          Stage
55               HIPAA Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 Amendments (CMS-4140-IFC)                    0938-AP65    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56               Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program                                                              1601-AA52       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
57               Collection of Alien Biometric Data Upon Exit From the United States at Air and Sea Ports of              1601-AA34    Final Rule Stage
                 Departure; United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT)
58               Asylum and Withholding Definitions                                                                       1615-AA41       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
59               Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to Numerical Limitations               1615-AB71       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
60               New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons Eligible for the T              1615-AA59    Final Rule Stage
                 Nonimmigrant Status
61               Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status              1615-AA60    Final Rule Stage
62               New Classification for Victims of Certain Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant          1615-AA67    Final Rule Stage
                 Status
63               Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Nonimmigrant Investor Classification           1615-AB75    Final Rule Stage
64               Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Workers Classification                         1615-AB76    Final Rule Stage
65               Revisions to Federal Immigration Regulations for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;       1615-AB77    Final Rule Stage
                 Conforming Regulations
66               Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (USCG-2001-10486)       1625-AA32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
67               Inspection of Towing Vessels (USCG-2006-24412)                                                           1625-AB06       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
68               Establishment of Global Entry Program                                                                    1651-AA73       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
69               Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements                                             1651-AA70    Final Rule Stage
70               Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization           1651-AA72    Final Rule Stage
                 (ESTA) Program
71               Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program                                                      1651-AA77    Final Rule Stage
72               Aircraft Repair Station Security                                                                         1652-AA38       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 64144]]

 
73               Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator          1652-AA53       Proposed Rule
                 Security Program                                                                                                                 Stage
74               Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads--Security Training of Employees                            1652-AA55       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
75               Freight Railroads--Security Training of Employees                                                        1652-AA57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
76               Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees                                                      1652-AA59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
77               Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees                                                      1652-AA61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
78               Air Cargo Screening                                                                                      1652-AA64    Final Rule Stage
79               Clarification of Criteria for Certification, Oversight, and Recertification of Schools by the            1653-AA44       Proposed Rule
                 Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) To Enroll F or M Nonimmigrant Students                                               Stage
80               Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal                                         1653-AA13    Final Rule Stage
81               Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification                        1653-AA47    Final Rule Stage
82               Extending Period for Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With         1653-AA56    Final Rule Stage
                 STEM Degrees and Expanding the CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions
83               Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households                                    1660-AA18       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
84               Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations                                                           1660-AA51       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
85               Special Community Disaster Loans Program                                                                 1660-AA44    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86               HOME Investment Partnerships--Improving Performance and Accountability; Updating Property Standards         2501-AC94    Proposed Rule
                 and Instituting Energy Efficiency Standards (FR-5234)                                                                            Stage
87               Housing Trust Fund Program--Allocation Formula and Program Requirements (FR-5246)                           2506-AC23    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
88               Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Program; Consolidation of HUD                 2506-AC26    Proposed Rule
                 Homeless Assistance Programs (FR-5333)                                                                                           Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89               Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities          1190-AA44    Final Rule Stage
90               Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services                      1190-AA46    Final Rule Stage
91               Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances                                                       1117-AA61    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92               The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as Amended                                                     1215-AB76       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 64145]]

 
93               Records To Be Kept by Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act                                       1215-AB78       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
94               Interpretation of the ``Advice'' Exemption of Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and       1215-AB79       Proposed Rule
                 Disclosure Act                                                                                                                   Stage
95               Child Labor Regulations, Orders, and Statements of Interpretation                                        1215-AB57    Final Rule Stage
96               YouthBuild Program Regulation                                                                            1205-AB49       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
97               Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program; Regulations                                             1205-AB57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
98               Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment of Regulations                    1205-AB59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
99               Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States                                    1205-AB55    Final Rule Stage
100              Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans                           1210-AB33       Prerule Stage
101              Definition of ``Fiduciary'' -- Investment Advice                                                         1210-AB32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
102              Health Care Arrangements Established by State and Local Governments for Non-Governmental Employees       1210-AB34       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
103              Genetic Information Nondiscrimination                                                                    1210-AB27    Final Rule Stage
104              Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act                                                            1210-AB30    Final Rule Stage
105              Metal and Nonmetal Impoundments                                                                          1219-AB70       Prerule Stage
106              Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard                                                                   1219-AB36       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
107              Occupational Exposure to Coal Mine Dust (Lowering Exposure)                                              1219-AB64       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
108              Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica                                                              1218-AB70       Prerule Stage
109              Hazard Communication                                                                                        1218-AC20    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
110              Cranes and Derricks in Construction                                                                         1218-AC01 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111              Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections -- Part 2                                                        2105-AD92       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
112              Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections                                                                  2105-AD72    Final Rule Stage
113              Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers                                  2120-AJ00       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
114              Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations; Safety Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments      2120-AJ53       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
115              Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements                                                   2120-AJ58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
116              Automatic Dependent Surveillance -- Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic            2120-AI92    Final Rule Stage
                 Control Service
117              Carrier Safety Fitness Determination                                                                     2126-AB11       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
118              Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices                 2126-AB22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
119              National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners                                                         2126-AA97    Final Rule Stage
120              Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards                            2126-AB02    Final Rule Stage
121              Ejection Mitigation                                                                                      2127-AK23       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
122              Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors                                         2127-AK43       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 64146]]

 
123              Require Installation of Seat Belts on Motorcoaches, FMVSS No. 208                                        2127-AK56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
124              Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information                                                                2127-AK45    Final Rule Stage
125              Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards MYs 2012-2016                     2127-AK50    Final Rule Stage
126              Positive Train Control                                                                                      2130-AC03 Final Rule Stage
127              Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management                                                       2137-AE15    Final Rule Stage
128              Regulations To Be Followed by All Departments, Agencies, and Shippers Having Responsibility To           2133-AB74       Proposed Rule
                 Provide a Preference for U.S.-Flag Vessels in the Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels                                           Stage
129              Cargo Preference -- Compromise, Assessment, Mitigation, Settlement and Collection of Civil               2133-AB75       Proposed Rule
                 Penalties                                                                                                                        Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130              Emergency Economic Stabilization Act; Conflicts of Interest                                                 1505-AC05 Final Rule Stage
131              TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance                                                    1505-AC09 Final Rule Stage
132              S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act                                                                          1557-AD23    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133              Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings                       2070-AJ56       Prerule Stage
134              CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility                                                                   2050-AG56       Prerule Stage
135              Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at         2060-AM44       Proposed Rule
                 Major Sources of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources                                       Stage
136              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter                              2060-AO47       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
137              Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide                           2060-AO48       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
138              Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of      2060-AO72       Proposed Rule
                 Sulfur                                                                                                                           Stage
139              Clean Air Transport Rule                                                                                 2060-AP50       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
140              Revision to Pb Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements                                                       2060-AP77       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
141              Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule                            2060-AP86       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
142              Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards                                 2060-AP98       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
143              Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program      2070-AJ57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
144              Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power         2050-AE81       Proposed Rule
                 Producers                                                                                                                        Stage
145              Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures                                               2040-AE95       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
146              Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide                         2060-AO19    Final Rule Stage

[[Page 64147]]

 
147              Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per              2060-AO38    Final Rule Stage
                 Cylinder
148              Renewable Fuels Standard Program                                                                         2060-AO81    Final Rule Stage
149              Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the           2060-AP55    Final Rule Stage
                 Clean Air Act
150              EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate       2060-AP58    Final Rule Stage
                 Average Fuel Economy Standards
151              Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations          2060-AP87    Final Rule Stage
                 That Determine Pollutants Covered by the Federal PSD Permit Program
152              Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting      2070-AJ55    Final Rule Stage
                 Program
153              Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule                               2050-AG16    Final Rule Stage
154              Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source          2040-AE91    Final Rule Stage
                 Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
155              Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act                         3046-AA87       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
156              Regulations To Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act          3046-AA85    Final Rule Stage
                 Amendments Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                      NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157              Office of Government Information Services                                                                3095-AB62       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158              8(a) Business Development                                                                                3245-AF53       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
159              Small Business Size Standards: Retail Trade Industries                                                   3245-AF69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
160              Small Business Size Standards: Other Services                                                            3245-AF70       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
161              Small Business Size Standards: Accommodations and Food Service Industries                                3245-AF71       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
162              Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program                                                      3245-AG06       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Endocrine System Disorders (436P)                                0960-AD78       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
164              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders (859P)                              0960-AF58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 64148]]

 
165              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P)                                          0960-AF69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
166              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974P)                                   0960-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
167              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders (3466P)                            0960-AG71       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
168              Reestablishing Uniform National Disability Adjudication Provisions (3502P)                               0960-AG80       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
169              Disability Determinations by State Agency Disability Examiners (3510P)                                   0960-AG87       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
170              Temporary Authorization for Federal Disability Examiners to Adjudicate Hearing Requests On-The-          0960-AG97       Proposed Rule
                 Record (3526P)                                                                                                                   Stage
171              Attorney Advisory Program Permanent Rule (3578P)                                                         0960-AH05       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
172              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss (2862F)                                             0960-AG20    Final Rule Stage
173              Revisions to Rules on Representation of Parties (3396F)                                                  0960-AG56    Final Rule Stage
174              Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge (3481F)                      0960-AG61    Final Rule Stage
175              Amendments to Regulations Regarding Major Life-Changing Events Affecting Income-Related Monthly          0960-AH06    Final Rule Stage
                 Adjustments to Medicare Part B Premiums (3574F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176              Tribal Background Investigation Submission Requirements and Timing                                       3141-AA15       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
177              Class II and Class III Minimum Internal Control Standards                                                3141-AA27       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
178              Periodic Reporting of Service Performance Measurements and Customer Satisfaction                         3211-AA05    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. E9-28608 Filed 12-04-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S

[[Page 64149]]




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2010 will continue to focus on 
implementing the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-246), known as the ``2008 Farm Bill,'' which covers major farm, 
trade, conservation, rural development, energy, nutrition assistance 
and other programs. In addition, USDA will implement regulations that 
will improve program outcomes by achieving the Department's high 
priority goals as well as reducing burden on stakeholders, program 
participants, and small businesses. Important areas of activity include 
the following:
Nutrition Assistance
 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 2010, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vendor fraud.
Food Safety
 In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop 
            science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, 
            poultry, egg, and farm-raised catfish 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.
Conservation
 USDA will continue to focus on implementing the conservation 
            programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Over the past 
            year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has 
            promulgated 11 interim and proposed rules and has received 
            public comment on them. In 2010, NRCS will finalize these 
            rules which include the Conservation Stewardship Program 
            and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Promoting Rural Development and Renewable Energy
 USDA priority regulatory actions for the Rural Development 
            mission primarily relate to promulgating relations for 
            programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, including the 
            Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural Micro-
            Entrepreneurship Program. USDA has utilized Notices of 
            Funding Availability implement many of these programs in 
            Fiscal Year 2009. Regulations are needed to maintain them. 
            In addition, USDA needs to finalize the reform of its on-
            going broadband access program through an interim rule that 
            will combine provisions of a proposed rule published in 
            2007 and changes in the program that were authorized in the 
            2008 Farm Bill.
 USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic 
            opportunities to revitalize rural communities through the 
            purchase and use of renewable, environmentally friendly 
            biobased products 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 will finalize a rule establishing the 
            Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Trade Promotion, Market Development, Farm Loans, and Disaster 
Assistance
 USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system 
            through trade promotion, market development, farm income 
            support, disaster assistance, and farm loan programs. In 
            addition to the regulations already implemented, including 
            those pertaining to the eligibility for farm program 
            payments, the Farm Service Agency will issue new 
            regulations implementing disaster assistance programs to 
            compensate agricultural producers for production losses due 
            to natural disasters. Regulations will also be developed to 
            implement conservation loan programs intended to help 
            producers finance the construction of conservation 
            measures.
Other Regulatory Activities
 USDA will work to facilitate a fair, competitive marketplace, 
            support the organic sector, and continue regulatory work to 
            protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and 
            natural resources. USDA will promulgate regulations to 
            enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA 
            will also finalize a rule specifying access to pasture 
            standards for organically raised ruminants. In addition, 
            USDA will amend regulations related to the importation of 
            nursery products and animals and animal products. Further, 
            USDA will propose specific standards for the humane 
            handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
            under the Animal Welfare Act.
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.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following 
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary 
of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2010:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership 
with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income 
people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a 
manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public 
confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 
2010 regulatory plan supports the goal to ensure that all of

[[Page 64150]]

America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals 
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 consumed at home, 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 to simplify 
            program administration, support work, and improve access to 
            benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
            (SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program. FNS will continue 
            to improve SNAP administration by developing a rule to 
            implement provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
            Act of 2008 that address eligibility, certification, 
            employment, and training issues. An interim rule 
            implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC 
            Reauthorization Act of 2004 to establish automatic 
            eligibility for homeless children for school meals further 
            supports this objective.
 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
            represents FNS's efforts to improve the diets of its 
            clients through nutrition education, and to ensure that 
            program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively 
            improve nutrition for program participants. In support of 
            this objective, FNS plans to propose rules updating the 
            nutrition standards in the school meals programs; implement 
            the SNAP nutrition education provisions of the Food, 
            Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; and establish 
            permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 
            which currently operates in a select number of schools in 
            each State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and 
            the Virgin Islands.
 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. FNS will also finalize a rule to 
            improve the SNAP quality control process and propose a rule 
            to improve the SNAP retailer sanction process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish products in 
interstate and foreign 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, egg, and catfish 
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 (HACCP) 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. Following are some 
of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In March 2009, FSIS published a final 
rule requiring that all cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled at 
any time before slaughter, including those that become non-ambulatory 
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and 
properly disposed of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS inspection 
personnel determined, on case by-case basis, the disposition of cattle 
that became non-ambulatory disabled after they had passed ante-mortem 
inspection. The final rule removed the provision for case-by-case 
determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
Country of Origin Labeling. In March 2009, FSIS affirmed its August 
2008 interim final rule requiring country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of 
any meat or poultry product that is a ``covered commodity'' as defined 
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the regulations set out 
in AMS's January 2009 final rule on mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling (COOL).
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. The 2008 Farm Bill, made several 
amendments to statutes administered by FSIS and gave the Agency other 
instructions. As a result, FSIS is developing new regulations to 
implement: mandatory inspection for catfish; a program for interstate 
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products; and recall 
procedure and process control reassessment requirements for inspected 
establishments.
 Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to 
            implement 2008 Farm Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. L. 
            110-246, Sec. 11016) to make catfish amenable to the FMIA. 
            The regulations will define ``catfish'' and the scope of 
            coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments that 
            process catfish and catfish products. The regulations will 
            take into account the conditions under which the catfish 
            are raised and transported to a processing establishment.
 Interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry 
            products. FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new 
            voluntary Federal-State cooperative inspection program 
            under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer 
            employees would be eligible to ship meat and poultry 
            products in interstate commerce. State-inspected 
            establishments selected to participate in this program 
            would be required to comply with all Federal standards 
            under the FMIA and the PPIA. These establishments would 
            receive inspection services from State inspection personnel 
            that have been trained and certified to assist with 
            enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 
            produced under the program that have been inspected and 
            passed by selected State inspection personnel would bear a 
            Federal mark of inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 Farm 
            Bill provides for the interstate shipment of State-
            inspected meat and poultry products from selected 
            establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate 
            implementing regulations no later than 18 months from the 
            date of its enactment.
 Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements 
            for Inspected Establishments. FSIS is proposing regulations 
            that will implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 Farm Bill on 
            notification, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements 
            for inspected establishments. This section amends the FMIA 
            and PPIA to require establishments that are subject to 
            inspection under these Acts to promptly notify the Agency 
            when an adulterated or misbranded product received by or 
            originating from the

[[Page 64151]]

            establishment has entered into commerce. Section 11017 also 
            requires establishments subject to inspection under the 
            FMIA and PPIA to prepare and maintain current procedures 
            for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the 
            establishment and document each reassessment of the 
            establishment's process control plans.
 Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS 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.
 Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS Public Health Information 
            System. To support its food safety inspection activities, 
            FSIS is developing the Public Health Information System 
            (PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, will 
            replace many of the Agency's current systems and automate 
            many business processes. Among the many other services it 
            will provide, PHIS will automate and streamline the export 
            and import application and certification processes. To 
            facilitate the implementation of these PHIS applications, 
            FSIS will propose to amend the meat, poultry products, and 
            egg products inspection regulations to provide for 
            electronic export and import application and certification 
            processes as alternatives to the current paper-based 
            systems for these certifications. The new electronic system 
            will enable the Agency to process an establishment's 
            application for export certification, verify that the 
            establishment and product meet the application and 
            certification requirements, approve the application, and 
            process the export certificate. The Agency is proposing the 
            export application and certification service as a 
            reimbursable service under Agricultural Marketing Act 
            authority.
 Rulemaking to support control of Escherichia coli O157:H7. 
            FSIS will propose to require that any business that grinds 
            or chops raw beef products, including products that are 
            ground or chopped at the request of an individual consumer, 
            keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all 
            transactions involved in the business that are subject to 
            the FMIA. These records, such as grinding logs, provide 
            critical information about how, when, and where ground 
            product was prepared, shipped, received, stored, and 
            handled, and are essential to illness outbreak 
            investigations, recalls, and other public health activities 
            that FSIS conducts. Businesses that will be required to 
            comply with this proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected 
            establishments and retail facilities that grind or chop raw 
            beef products, including beef manufacturing trimmings 
            derived from cattle not slaughtered on site at the official 
            establishment or retail store. An FSIS-inspected 
            establishment that grinds or chops raw beef products 
            derived from cattle slaughtered at that same establishment 
            will be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
Other Planned Initiatives:
Performance Standards for Ready-to-Eat Products. FSIS plans to finalize 
a February 2001 proposed 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 L. 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 is also 
planning further action with respect to other elements of its 2001 
proposal on performance standards for processed meat and poultry 
products, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in 
processed products.
FSIS plans to propose to amend the poultry products inspection 
regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment sorts 
the carcasses for defects, and the Agency verifies that the system is 
under control and producing safe and wholesome product. The Agency 
would propose to adopt performance standards, designed to ensure that 
the establishments are carrying out slaughter, dressing, and chilling 
operations in a manner that ensures no significant growth of pathogens.
The chilling performance standard would replace 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. Poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering, 
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no 
significant growth of pathogens.
FSIS is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration in an 
effort to rationalize the division of food protection responsibilities 
between the two agencies and eliminate 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. FSIS also 
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and closed-face meat 
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the Agency's jurisdiction.
FSIS Small Business Implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small 
businesses. Some of the regulations listed above substantially affect 
small businesses. Some rulemakings can benefit small businesses. For 
example, the rule on interstate shipment of State-inspected products 
will open interstate markets to some small State-inspected 
establishments that previously could only sell their products within 
State boundaries.
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

[[Page 64152]]

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.
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 priority items for the next year include a rulemaking 
required as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm Bill and a final rule 
for the National Organic Program.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import Assessments). The 
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA 
to create a national producer program for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers 
fund this self-help program through a mandatory assessment on all milk 
produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially. Dairy 
farmers administer the national program through the National Dairy 
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).
The 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include producers in Alaska, 
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay an assessment of $0.15 per 
hundredweight of milk production. Imported dairy products will be 
assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of fluid milk equivalent. AMS 
published proposed regulations establishing the program in the May 19, 
2009, Federal Register. The proposal had a 30-day comment period. 
Comments received for this rule are currently under review. AMS expects 
to publish a final rule early next year.
Access to Pasture. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of the 
public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on the 
relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and grazing 
land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on access to 
pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an animal's 
stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a uniform 
requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. AMS published a proposed rule 
with a request for comment on October 24, 2008. The comment period 
ended December 23, 2008. AMS received over 80,000 comments. Due to the 
high volume of comments received, final action on this rule is not 
expected before December 2009.
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: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work to 
revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable 
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the 
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its 
regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for planting) to better 
address plant health risks associated with propagative material. APHIS 
also plans to propose standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal Welfare 
Act.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, 
oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and 
competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and 
American agriculture.
Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work that will finalize its August, 
2007 proposed rule regarding the records that live poultry dealers must 
furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and 
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The requirements contained in 
the final rule are intended to help both poultry growers and live 
poultry dealers by providing the growers with more information about 
the poultry growing arrangement at an earlier stage.
In addition, GIPSA intends to propose a rule that will define practices 
or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive, and/
or that represent the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and growers can 
fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise related to 
livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being proposed in 
accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by the Packers 
and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of Sections 11005 
and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) mission is to stabilize farm 
income; to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve 
and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources; to provide 
credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily 
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources; and to help farm 
operations recover from the effects of disaster, as prescribed by 
various statutes.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 2009 will be to continue implementing 
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 
2008, governs Federal farm programs through the 2012. New regulatory 
actions include:
 Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of 
            standing disaster assistance programs, including a new 
            revenue based program for supplemental agricultural 
            disaster assistance. These programs require completely new 
            regulations and revision of existing program regulations.
 Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In addition, the 2008 Farm 
            Bill adds a new biomass crop assistance program that 
            supports the Administration's energy initiative to 
            accelerate the investment in and production of biofuels. 
            The program will provide financial assistance to 
            agricultural and forest land owners and operators

[[Page 64153]]

            to establish and produce eligible crops, including woody 
            biomass, for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection, 
            harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material 
            for use in a biomass conversion facility.
 Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires changes 
            to farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency 
            loans, including expanding to include socially 
            disadvantaged farmers, increasing loan limits, loan size, 
            funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers 
            to commercial credit. In addition, it establishes a new 
            direct and guaranteed loan program to assist farmers in 
            implementing conservation practices. FSA will develop and 
            issue the regulations and make program funds available to 
            eligible clientele in as timely a manner as possible.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is 
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private 
land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural 
resources.
Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities for FY 2010 will be to finalize 
the rules promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm 
Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs USDA conservation 
programs through 2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and proposed 
rulemakings pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, and received public comment 
for each of the regulations. In order to provide certainty and clarity 
for NRCS program participants, NRCS will address the public comments in 
final rulemaking and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments 
in response to those comments.
Among the programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation 
Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
represent a significant public investment in environmental improvement 
and stewardship. The 2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and expanded 
several other financial assistance and conservation easement programs, 
including the Agricultural Management Assistance program, the Farm and 
Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the 
Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Regional Equity provisions, the 
State Technical Committee, the Technical Service Provider Assistance 
Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program.
During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated an interim final rule to identify 
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1970 to streamline delivery of projects funded by the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans to finalize the Categorical 
Exclusion rule in response to public comments. Finally, NRCS intends to 
promulgate a program for its ACES program to provide consistency with 
how ACES is used by other agencies.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is 
the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business 
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the 
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and 
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve 
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial 
resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private 
credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served 
areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, 
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 
corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies. The mission of 
Cooperative Program of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the 
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for 
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
Priorities: RBS's priority for 2009 will be to fully implement the 2008 
Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for Section 9003 
(Biorefinery Assistance Program), Section 9004 (Repowering Assistance 
Program) Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for Advanced Biofuels) and 
Section 6022 (Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program). The Agency 
has been administering Sections 9003 and 9004 through the use of 
various Notices (Notices of Funds Availability and Contract Proposal), 
rather than regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 (Rural Energy for 
America Program) will be made to incorporate Energy Audits and 
Renewable Energy Development Assistance and Feasibility Studies for 
Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant purposes, as well as other Farm 
Bill changes to the Section 9007 program. In addition, regulations for 
the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be revised to 
reflect Farm Bill provisions relating to locally or regionally produced 
agricultural food products. These rules will be developed to minimize 
program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing program 
delivery and Agency oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: To improve the quality of life in rural America by providing 
investment capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities 
telecommunications, electric and water and waste disposal 
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities; 
municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies; 
public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit, 
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private 
partnership which is forged between RUS and these industries results in 
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates 
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' priority in 2010 is fulfilling the President's goal of 
bringing affordable broadband to all rural Americans by continuing to 
develop a final rule for the Broadband Loan Program, which was 
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 
107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) and subsequently amended by the 2008 Farm 
Bill. In May 2007, RUS published a proposed rule to improve the focus 
and strengthen the financial stability of the program that was being 
administered under regulations developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before 
this proposed rule could be finalized the 2008 Farm Bill became law, 
significantly changing the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan 
Program. Consequently, RUS now plans to publish an interim rule that 
will combine the provisions of the proposed rule with the changes made 
by the 2008 Farm Bill.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act 
expanded RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new 
authority to make grants to facilitate broadband deployment in rural 
areas. RUS has been tasked with the time sensitive priority of 
developing the regulation for this new authority. The Agency will, 
however, also continue to develop a final rule for the Broadband 
Program based upon change include in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that

[[Page 64154]]

USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the 
needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with laws and mandates; 
and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Priorities: In July 2009, USDA's Departmental Administration published 
the proposed rule to establish a program to label eligible products 
made from biobased feedstocks. As part of this rulemaking, USDA will be 
accepting public comments through September 2009 on how to implement a 
program that promotes the purchase of products made from agricultural 
and forestry feedstocks. Once the public comment period is closed, USDA 
will finalize the labeling regulation to allow manufacturers and 
vendors of biobased products to display the label on their packaging 
and marketing materials. Once completed, this regulation will implement 
a section of the 2008 Farm Bill and will promote alternative uses of 
agriculture and forest materials.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed 
costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts 
of its regulations. 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; 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. For 
2010, the Department's focus on Farm Bill and other regulations will be 
to implement the changes in such a way as to provide benefits while 
minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program 
participants.
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ACCESS TO PASTURE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 6501 et seq


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by the Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS). Under the NOP, AMS established national 
standards for the production and handling of organically produced 
agricultural products. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of 
the public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on 
the relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and 
grazing land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on 
access to pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an 
animal's stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a 
uniform requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. Comments received as a result 
of the proposed rule will assist in determining the Agency's next steps 
in rulemaking on this issue.


Statement of Need:


AMS has determined that current regulations regarding access to pasture 
and the contribution of grazing to the diet of organically raised 
livestock lack sufficient specificity and clarity to enable AMS to 
efficiently administer the Program. Organic System Plans (OSPs) dealing 
with livestock management reflect different application of existing 
regulations and interpretations of requirements across Accredited 
Certifying Agents (ACAs). AMS has received 11 complaints requesting 
enforcement actions for alleged violations of the pasture provisions of 
the NOP livestock standards.


Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 2005, the National Organic 
Standards Board (NOSB) made six recommendations regarding access to the 
outdoors for livestock, pasture, and conditions for temporary 
confinement of animals. The NOSB process for the development of 
recommendations consists of: (1) identification of a need by members of 
the public, the NOSB, or the NOP; (2) development of a draft NOSB 
recommendation; (3) public meeting notice published by the NOP on its 
website and in the Federal Register; (4) solicitation of public 
comments on the recommendation through regulations.gov and at the 
NOSB's public meetings; (5) finalization of the recommendation; (6) 
NOSB approval of the recommendation; and (7) NOSB referral to the 
Secretary for the Secretary's consideration and any appropriate action 
(e.g., rulemaking, policy development, guidance).


In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP published an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 19131) seeking input on the role of 
pasture in the NOP regulations and what parts of the NOP regulations 
should be amended to address the role of pasture in organic livestock 
management.


More than 80,500 comments were received on the ANPRM. Support for 
strict standards and greater detail on the role of pasture in organic 
livestock production was nearly unanimous with just 28 of the comments 
opposing changes to the pasture requirements. Organic consumers have 
clearly stated in comments that they expect organic ruminants to graze 
pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their Dry Matter Intake 
(DMI) needs from grazing. Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments were 
received from consumers requesting regulations that would clearly 
establish grazing as a primary source of nourishment. Approximately 
80,250 of these comments were in a modified form letter. Many of these 
consumers requested that grazing account for at least 30 percent of the 
ruminant's DMI needs.


AMS published a proposed rule with a request for comment on October 24, 
2008. The comment period ended December 23, 2008. AMS received more 
than 80,000 comments. Due to the high volume of comments received, 
final action on this rule is not expected before December 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The NOP is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. seq.). The AMS 
administers the NOP. Under the NOP, AMS oversees national standards for 
the production and handling of organically produced agricultural 
products. This action is being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP 
livestock production regulations have sufficient specificity and 
clarity to enable AMS and accredited certifying agents to efficiently 
administer the NOP

[[Page 64155]]

and to facilitate and improve compliance and enforcement. This action 
is also intended to satisfy consumer expectations that ruminant 
livestock animals graze pastures during the growing season.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes to 
the existing regulations; (2) adopt a reduced pasturing period, such as 
the 120-day minimum period recommended by the NOSB and some commenters; 
or (3) adopt a three ruminants per acre stocking rate measure as 
suggested by some commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


This action will increase the cost of production for producers who 
currently do not pasture their animals and those producers who do not 
manage their pastures at a sufficient level to provide at least 30 
percent DMI. For organic slaughter stock producers, an increase in 
costs might result in a greater volume of slaughter animals, at least 
in the short term, entering the market driving down prices. Longer term 
these increased costs could result in increased consumer prices unless 
the increased costs are off set by reductions in other costs of 
production. Other costs of production that could be expected to go down 
are costs associated with producer harvest and purchase of feed and the 
cost of herd health.


Benefits:


This final rule brings uniformity in application to the livestock 
regulations; especially as they relate to the pasturing of ruminants. 
This uniformity will create equitable, consistent, performance 
standards for all ruminant livestock producers. Producers who currently 
operate based on grazing will perceive a benefit because these 
producers claim an economic disadvantage in competing with livestock 
operations that do not provide pasture. This proposed rule would also 
bring uniformity in application to the livestock regulations. This 
uniformity in application will allow the ACAs and AMS to administer the 
livestock regulations in a way that reflects consumer preferences 
regarding the production of organic livestock and their products. 
Commenters have clearly stated that they expect organic ruminants to 
graze pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their dry matter 
needs from grazing. Because of this, it is crucial that consumer 
expectations are met. This proposed rulemaking is intended to reflect 
consumer expectations and producer perspectives. This action makes 
clear what access to pasture means under the NOP.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/06                    71 FR 19131
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/12/06
NPRM                            10/24/08                    73 FR 63583
NPRM Comment Period End         12/23/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--AMS



2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL RULE ON 
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1150


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, Assessments on imported dairy 
products must be implemented by deadline.


With the passage of Section 1507 in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act 
was amended to apply certain assessments to Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 2008 
Farm Bill authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement 
the mandatory dairy import assessment without providing a notice and 
comment period. However, due to the interest of affected parties a 
notice and comment period was provided.


Abstract:


The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and to reduce 
milk surpluses. The program functions to strengthen the dairy 
industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding 
domestic and foreign consumption of fluid milk and dairy products. 
Amendments to the Order are pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. 
The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that the Order be amended to implement an 
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research. 
The 2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cent 
per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products 
imported into the United States. Additionally, in accordance with the 
2008 Farm Bill, the term ``United States'' is the Dairy Act is amended 
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico. Producers in these areas will be assessed 15 cents per 
hundredweight for all milk produced and marketed.


Statement of Need:


In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23359) proposed rule (National 
Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Proposed Rule on Amendments to 
the Order), AMS received 189 timely comments from consumers, dairy 
producers, foreign governments, importers, exporters, manufacturers, 
members of Congress, trade associations, and other interested parties.


The comments covered a wide range of topics, including 39 in opposition 
to the proposal and 150 in support of the proposal. Opponents of the 
proposal expressed concern over the lack of a referendum requirement 
among those affected; default assessment rates; lack of ability to no 
longer promote State-branded dairy products; lack of importer 
organizations eligible to become a Qualified Program; disputed the 
cost-benefit analysis for

[[Page 64156]]

importers and producers; and cited unreasonable importer paperwork and 
record keeping burdens.


Proponents of the proposal expressed support for an expedited 
implementation of the dairy import assessment; cited the enhanced 
benefits both domestic producers and importers will receive as a result 
of implementation; recommended new Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes; 
use of a default assessment rate; recommended regular reporting of the 
products and assessments on imports; and all thresholds for compliance 
with U.S. trade obligations have been met.


AMS plans to issue a final rule implementing the dairy import 
assessment in the near future. In response to the comments received and 
after consultation with USTR, AMS is addressing, in the final rule, 
referenda, alternative assessment rates, and compliance and enforcement 
activity. All remaining changes are miscellaneous and minor in nature 
in order to clarify regulatory text.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program) is 
authorized under the authorized under the provisions of the Dairy 
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514), and the 
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). The Dairy 
Programs unit of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day--to--day 
oversight responsibilities for the National Program.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based 
on the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Assessments to dairy producers under the Order are relatively small 
compared to producer revenue. If dairy producers in Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had paid 
assessments of $0.15 per hundredweight of milk marketed in 2007, it is 
estimated that $1.1 million would have been paid. This is about 0.6 
percent of the $192 million total value of milk produced and marketed 
in these areas.


Benefits to producers in these areas are assumed to be similar to those 
benefits received by producers of other U.S. geographical regions. 
Cornell University has conducted an independent economic analysis of 
the Program that is included in the annual report to Congress. Cornell 
determined that from 1998 through 2007, each dollar invested in generic 
dairy marketing by dairy farmers during the period would return between 
$5.52 and $5.94, on average, in net revenue to farmers.


Assessments collected from importers under the National Program will be 
relatively small compared to the value of dairy imports. If importers 
had been assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or equivalent thereof, for 
imported dairy products in 2007 as specified in this rule, it is 
estimated that less than $6.1 million would have been paid. This is 
about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion value of the dairy products 
imported in 2007.


Risks:


If the amendments are not implemented, USDA would be in violation of 
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/19/09                    74 FR 23359
NPRM Comment Period End         06/18/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Whitney Rick
Promotion and Research Branch Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6909
Fax: 202 720-0285
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




3. 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 Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 64157]]

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:
Gerald Rushin
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0954
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS



4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION OF BOVINES AND BOVINE 
PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC 
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation 
of bovines and bovine products. Under this rulemaking, countries would 
be classified as either negligible risk, controlled risk, or 
undetermined risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Some 
commodities would be allowed importation into the United States 
regardless of the BSE classification of the country of export. Other 
commodities would be subject to importation restrictions or 
prohibitions based on the type of commodity and the BSE classification 
of the country. The criteria for country classification and commodity 
import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization 
for Animal Health.


Statement of Need:


We are proposing to amend the regulations after conducting a thorough 
review of relevant scientific literature and a comprehensive evaluation 
of the issues and concluding that the proposed changes would continue 
to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States, while 
allowing the importation of additional animals and animal products into 
this country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), 
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to 
prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of any 
pest or disease of livestock.


Alternatives:


We could leave the current bovine regulations unchanged, but 
maintaining the status quo would not provide an opportunity to apply 
the latest scientific evidence to our BSE-related import conditions. 
Another alternative--modifying the BSE regulations related to the 
importation of bovines and bovine-derived products to precisely match 
the OIE guidelines without allowing for modification deemed necessary 
by APHIS--would not allow APHIS to independently interpret the 
scientific literature or reflect current USDA regulations and policies. 
Making no changes to the current regulations that govern the 
importation of cervids and camelids would perpetuate an unnecessary 
constraint on trade in those commodities, because cervids and camelids 
pose an extremely low BSE risk.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


APHIS has concluded that the proposed changes would continue to guard 
against the introduction of BSE into the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


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


Agency Contact:
Christopher Robinson
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center 
for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 40
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-7837
RIN: 0579-AC68
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




5. 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 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

[[Page 64158]]

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 U.S.C. 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 Cost 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                            07/23/09                    74 FR 36403
NPRM Comment Period End         10/21/09
Final Rule                      07/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


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 Risk Manager, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




6. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


7 USC 181


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 18, 2010.


Abstract:


GIPSA is proposing regulations under the Packers & Stockyards Act, 
1921, that clarify when certain conduct in the livestock and poultry 
industries represents the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality to an undue or 
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed regulations also 
establish criteria GIPSA will consider in determining whether a live 
poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any 
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing 
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over 
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract 
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a live poultry 
dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for 
a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a 
breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry 
growing arrangement or swine production contract. The Farm Bill also 
instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations to ensure that 
producers and growers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate 
in the arbitration process if they so choose.


Statement of Need:


In enacting Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 
(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-246), Congress recognized the nature of problems 
encountered in the livestock and poultry industries and amended the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). These amendments established new 
requirements for participants in the livestock and poultry industries 
and required the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish 
criteria to consider when determining that certain other conduct is in 
violation of the P&S Act.


The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) 
attempts to enforce the broad prohibitions of the P&S Act have been 
frustrated, in part because it has not previously defined what conduct

[[Page 64159]]

constitutes an unfair practice or the giving of an undue preference or 
advantage. The new regulations that GIPSA is proposing describe and 
clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act and allow for more effective 
and efficient enforcement by GIPSA. They will clarify conditions for 
industry compliance with the P&S Act and provide for a fairer market 
place.


In accordance with the Farm Bill, GIPSA is proposing regulations under 
the P&S Act that would clarify when certain conduct in the livestock 
and poultry industries represents the making or giving of an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality 
to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed 
regulations also establish criteria that GIPSA will consider in 
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable 
notice to poultry growers of a suspension of the delivery of birds 
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional 
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or 
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and 
whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided 
a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy 
a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing 
arrangement or production contract.


The Farm Bill also instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
to ensure that poultry growers, swine production contract growers and 
livestock producers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate 
in the arbitration process, if they so choose. We are proposing a 
required format for providing poultry growers, swine production 
contract growers and livestock producers the opportunity to decline the 
use of arbitration in contracts requiring arbitration. We are also 
proposing criteria that we will consider in finding that poultry 
growers, swine production contract growers and livestock producers have 
a meaningful opportunity to participate fully in the arbitration 
process if they voluntarily agree to do so. We will use these criteria 
to assess the overall fairness of the arbitration process.


In addition to proposing regulations in accordance with the Farm Bill, 
GIPSA is proposing regulations that would prohibit certain conduct 
because it is unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive, in 
violation of the P&S Act. These additional proposed regulations are 
promulgated under the authority of Sec.  407 of the P&S Act, and 
complement those required by the Farm Bill to help ensure fair trade 
and competition in the livestock and poultry industries.


These regulations are intended to address the increased use of 
contracting in the marketing and production of livestock and poultry by 
entities under the jurisdiction of the P&S Act, and practices that 
result from the use of market power and alterations in private property 
rights, which violate the spirit and letter of the P&S Act. The effect 
increased contracting has had, and continues to have, on individual 
agricultural producers has significantly changed the industry and the 
rural economy as a whole, making these proposed regulations necessary.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 407 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 228) provides that the Secretary 
``may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to 
carry out the provisions of this Act.'' Sections 11005 and 11006 of the 
Farm Bill became effective June 18, 2008, and instruct the Secretary to 
promulgate additional regulations as described in this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Farm Bill explicitly directs the Secretary to promulgate certain 
regulations. GIPSA determined that additional regulations are necessary 
to provide notice to all regulated entities of types of practices and 
conduct that GIPSA considers ``unfair'' so that regulated entities are 
fully informed of actions or practices that are considered ``unfair'' 
and therefore, prohibited. Within both the mandatory and discretionary 
regulatory provisions we considered alternative options.


For example, GIPSA considered shorter notice periods in situations when 
a live poultry dealer suspends delivery of birds to a poultry grower. 
These alternatives would not have provided adequate trust and integrity 
in the livestock and poultry markets. Other alternatives may have been 
more restrictive. We considered prohibiting the use of arbitration to 
resolve disputes; however, that option goes against a popular method of 
dispute resolution in other industries and is not in line with the 
spirit of the 2008 Farm Bill. GIPSA believes that this proposed rule 
represents the best option to level the playing field between packers, 
swine contractors, live poultry dealers, and the nation's poultry 
growers, swine production contract growers, or livestock producers for 
the benefit of more efficient marketing and public good.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


Costs are aggregated into three major types: 1) administrative costs, 
which include items such as office work, postage, filing, and copying; 
2) costs of analysis, such as a business conducting a profit-loss 
analysis; and 3) adjustment costs, such as costs related to changing 
business behavior to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation.


Benefits:


Benefits are also aggregated into three major groups: 1) increased 
pricing efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 3) competitive 
efficiency.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--GIPSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




7. POULTRY CONTRACTS; INITIATION, PERFORMANCE, AND TERMINATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 221

[[Page 64160]]

CFR Citation:


9 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


GIPSA is amending the regulations issued under the Packers and 
Stockyards Act, 1921, regarding the records that live poultry dealers 
must furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and 
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The amendments to the 
regulatlions will require that live poultry dealers timely deliver a 
copy of an offered poultry growing arrangement to growers; include 
information about any Performance Improvement Plan in poultry growing 
arrangements; include provisions for written termination notices in 
poultry growing arrangements; and notwithstanding a confidentiality 
provision, allow growers to discuss the terms of poultry growing 
arrangements with designated individuals.


Statement of Need:


The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 
believes that the failure to disclose certain terms in a poultry 
growing arrangement constitutes an unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive 
practice in violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act (P&S Act).


Because of vertical integration and high concentration within the 
poultry industry, poultry growers do not realistically have the option 
of negotiating more favorable poultry growing arrangement terms with 
competing live poultry dealers because there may be no other live 
poultry dealers in the poultry grower's immediate geographic area or 
there may be significant differences in equipment requirements among 
live poultry dealers. There is considerable asymmetry of information 
and an imbalance in market power. This final rule will level the 
playing field by requiring that all live poultry dealers adopt fair and 
transparent practices when dealing with poultry growers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


One of GIPSA's primary functions is the enforcement of the P&S Act, (7 
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (P&S Act). Under authority granted to us by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, GIPSA is authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make 
those regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act.


Alternatives:


GIPSA collected input on several alternatives like issuing policy 
guidance to GIPSA employees, providing public notice that failure to 
provide growers with additional contract information was an unfair 
practice in violation of Sec.  202 of the P&S Act, or recommending that 
growers seek redress of grievances through civil court action or 
arbitration. GIPSA determined that none of these alternatives will meet 
the needs of poultry growers. We believe, however, that this final rule 
will provide the best means of achieving statutory intent at the lowest 
cost to poultry growers and live poultry dealers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


The costs to both poultry growers and live poultry dealers are 
negligible, as the rule does not impose significant additional 
requirements that increase actions that the poultry grower and the live 
poultry dealer must enact; they merely affect the timeliness of those 
actions. In some cases, the final rule requires that the poultry grower 
and the live poultry dealer commit to writing terms and conditions that 
are already in effect, but do not mandate what those terms and 
conditions must be. Thus, the only additional cost is the cost of 
producing and transmitting the printed document.


Benefits:


Collectively, the regulatory provisions in the final rule mitigate 
potential asymmetries of information between poultry growers and the 
live poultry dealers, which will lead to better decisions on the terms 
of compensation and reduce the potential for the expression of anti-
competitive market power. The provisions achieve this primarily by 
improving the quality and timeliness of information to growers, and to 
some extent to live poultry dealers as well. Benefits should accrue to 
poultry growers from an enhanced basis for making the decision as to 
whether to enter into a growout contract, and from additional time 
available to make plans for any necessary adjustments in those 
instances when the poultry grower is subject to a contract termination. 
Net social welfare will benefit from improved accuracy in the value 
(pricing) decisions involved in transactions between poultry growers 
and live poultry dealers as they negotiate contract terms.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/01/07                    72 FR 41952
NPRM Comment Period End         10/30/07
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AA98
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




8. ELIGIBILITY, CERTIFICATION, AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROVISIONS 
OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246; PL 104-121


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement 
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public 
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and

[[Page 64161]]

certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment 
and training. In addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP 
regulations throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from 
the Food Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes 
as mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these 
provisions was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 
also proposing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to 
provide State agencies options that are currently available only 
through waivers. These provisions would allow State agencies to average 
student work hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-
to-face interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule would impact the 
associated paperwork burdens. (08-006)


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement 
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public 
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of 
SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In 
addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP regulations 
throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from the Food 
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as 
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions 
was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also proposing 
2 discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies 
options that are currently available only through waivers. These 
provisions would allow State agencies to average student work hours and 
to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS 
anticipates that this rule would impact the associated paperwork 
burdens.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246) and 7 
CFR Part 273.


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs have not been determined; however, it is anticipated 
that this rule would impact the associated paperwork burdens.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD87
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



9. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL OF 2008 
RETAILER SANCTIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 276


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm 
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food 
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and 
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that 
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules. 
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty 
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to 
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil 
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates 
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six 
months.


In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule proposes to 
provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized retailer or 
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits 
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are 
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT 
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by 
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted 
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear 
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an 
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for 
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent 
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP 
participation.


Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional administrative 
retail violations and the associated sanction that would be imposed 
against the retail food store for committing the violation. For 
instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale food 
stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual EBT 
card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify the 
specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are found 
to be in violation. (08-007)


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm 
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food 
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and 
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that 
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules. 
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty 
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to 
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil 
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates 
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six 
months. In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule 
proposes to provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized 
retailer or

[[Page 64162]]

wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits 
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are 
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT 
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by 
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted 
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear 
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an 
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for 
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent 
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP 
participation. Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional 
administrative retail violations and the associated sanction that would 
be imposed against the retail food store for committing the violation. 
For instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale 
food stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual 
EBT card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify 
the specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are 
found to be in violation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-246).


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs are undetermined at this time until more research is 
conducted.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


Note: This RIN replaces the previously issued RIN 0584-AD78.


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD88
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



10.  FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; National School Lunch Act 
(NSLA); 42 U.S.C. 1769(a)


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 211


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National 
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a 
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding.


This proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently 
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the 
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements 
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State 
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and 
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The 
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding 
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.


In addition, the proposed rule would establish oversight activity and 
reporting and record keeping requirements that are not included in FFVP 
statutory requirements. Implementation of this rule is not expected to 
result in expenses for program operators because they receive funding 
to cover food purchases and administrative costs. (09-007)


Statement of Need:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National 
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a 
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding. This 
proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently 
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the 
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements 
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State 
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and 
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The 
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding 
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 19, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. National School 
Lunch Act (NSLA). 42 U.S.C. 1769(a).


Alternatives:


Because this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements set 
forth by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 by adding 
section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), to the 
National School Lunch Act, alternatives to this process are not known 
or being pursued at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Implementation of this rule is not expected to result in expenses for 
program operators because they receive funding to cover food purchases 
and administrative costs.


Risks:


No risks by implementing this proposed rule have been identified at 
this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10
Final Action                    12/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64163]]

Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD96
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




11. 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 Part 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 mis-categorized 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 Cost and Benefits:


This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial 
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect 
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and 
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the 
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted 
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are 
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those 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              06/27/02                    67 FR 43448
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   07/29/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          12/24/02
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                    03/00/10

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.

[[Page 64164]]

Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AC94
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



12. SNAP: 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, sections 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will amend the regulations of the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp 
Program, 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 were 
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of SNAP, 
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:


SNAP 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. SNAP 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 SNAP, 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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/16/04                    69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End         06/15/04
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



13. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS

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 Pub. L. 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


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.

[[Page 64165]]

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 timeframes 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 differences 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 Cost and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on 
benefit levels or administrative costs.


Risks:


The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans 
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States 
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is 
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will 
significantly revise the system for determining State agency 
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/16/03                    68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   12/15/03
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/14/04
NPRM                            09/23/05                    70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End         12/22/05
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________



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

[[Page 64166]]

developing extensive guidance materials in conjunction with our 
cooperators.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely, 
and will improve program access of eligible school children.


Risks:


This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to 
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and 
other agencies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              02/00/10
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/00/10
Final Action                    05/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




15. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


21 USC 1031 to 1056


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR 
590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 CFR 591; . . .


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require 
egg products plants and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to 
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that 
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. 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 Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to 
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry 
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required 
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan 
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee 
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of 
reduction sought and 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

[[Page 64167]]

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                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Policy Issuances Division
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



16. PRIOR LABELING APPROVAL SYSTEM: GENERIC LABEL APPROVAL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 451 to 470; 21 USC 601 to 695


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will continue an effort initiated several years ago by 
amending FSIS' regulations to expand the types of labeling that are 
generically approved. FSIS plans to propose that the submission of 
labeling for approval prior to use be limited to certain types of 
labeling, as specified in the regulations. In addition, FSIS plans to 
reorganize and amend the regulations by consolidating the nutrition 
labeling rules that currently are stated separately for meat and 
poultry products (in part 317, subpart B, and part 381, subpart Y, 
respectively) and by amending their provisions to set out clearly 
various circumstances under which these products are misbranded.


Statement of Need:


Expanding the types of labeling that are generically approved would 
permit Agency personnel to focus their resources on evaluating only 
those claims or special statements that have health and safety or 
economic implications. This would essentially eliminate the time needed 
for FSIS personnel to evaluate labeling features and allocate more time 
for staff to work on other duties and responsibilities. A major 
advantage of this proposal is that it is consistent with FSIS' current 
regulatory approach, which separates industry and Agency 
responsibilities.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
451 et seq.).


Alternatives:


FSIS considered several options. The first was to expand the types of 
labeling that would be generically approved and consolidate into one 
part, all of the labeling regulations applicable to products regulated 
under the FMIA and PPIA and the policies currently contained in FSIS 
Directive 7220.1, Revision 3. The second option FSIS considered was to 
consolidate only the meat and poultry regulations that are similar and 
to expand the types of generically approved labeling that can be 
applied by Federal and certified foreign establishments. The third 
option and the one favored by FSIS was to amend the prior labeling 
approval system in an incremental three-phase approach.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule would permit the Agency to realize an estimated cost 
savings of $670,000 over 10 years. The proposed rule would be 
beneficial because it would streamline the generic labeling process, 
while imposing no additional cost burden on establishments. Consumers 
would benefit because industry would have the ability to introduce 
products into the marketplace more quickly.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64168]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jeff Canavan
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705-4576
Phone: 301 504-0878
Fax: 301-504-0872
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC59
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



17. 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 USC 601(j); 21 USC 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 regulatory jurisdiction 
over nine products or product categories. Historically there has been 
confusion about 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 percent meat or poultry; breads, 
rolls and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; 
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or 
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50 percent 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 to 2005 by a 
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives showed that some of the 
decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product 
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations was not 
fully articulated or supported.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), 
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 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 Cost and Benefits:


FSIS estimates that the initial and recurring costs of the rule to 
industry would be approximately $5 million and $7 million, 
respectively. These costs would be attributable to new Sanitation SOP 
and HACCP plan development, as well as to labeling changes and 
training. FSIS would incur $7 million in annual recurring costs 
(salaries and benefits). Establishments coming under FSIS jurisdiction 
also would incur costs for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and 
annual HACCP plan reassessment.


Benefits to industry would accrue from reduced confusion over Agency 
jurisdiction, which may affect labeling and recordkeeping costs. There 
may be spill-over benefits accruing from changes in consumer behavior. 
Also, there would be improvement in efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS 
resources.

[[Page 64169]]

Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


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: 202 205-0279
Fax: 202 205-3625
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



18. NEW POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 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 Cost 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

[[Page 64170]]

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                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program 
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



19. NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR 
INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 612 to 613; 21 USC 459


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 417.4; ; 9 CFR 418


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require 
establishments subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to promptly notify the 
Secretary of Agriculture that an adulterated or misbranded product 
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into 
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that 
this has happened. FSIS is also proposing to require these 
establishments to: (1) prepare and maintain current procedures for the 
recall of all products produced and shipped by the establishment; and 
(2) document each reassessment of the process control plans of the 
establishment.


Statement of Need:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246, 
Sec. 11017), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to 
require establishments subject to inspection under these Acts to 
promptly notify the Secretary that an adulterated or misbranded product 
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into 
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that 
this has happened. Section 11017 also requires establishments subject 
to inspection under the FMIA and PPIA to: (1) prepare and maintain 
current procedures for the recall of all products produced and shipped 
by the establishment; and (2) document each reassessment of the process 
control plans of the establishment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459, and Public Law 110-246, Sec. 
11017.


Alternatives:


The option of no rulemaking is unavailable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Approximate costs: $5.0 million for labor and costs; $5.2 million for 
first year costs; $0.7 million average costs adjusted with a 3% 
inflation rate for following years. Total approximate costs: $10.2 
million. The average cost of this proposed rule to small entities is 
expected to be less than one tenth of one cent of meat and poultry food 
products per annum. Therefore, FSIS has made an initial determination 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.


Approximate benefits: benefits have not been monetized because 
quantified data on benefits attributable to this proposed rule are not 
available. Non-monetary benefits include improved protection of the 
public health, improved HACCP plans, and improved recall effectiveness.


Risks:


In preparing regulations on the shipment of adulterated meat and 
poultry products by meat and poultry establishments, the preparation 
and maintenance of procedures for recalled products produced and 
shipped by establishments, and the documentation of each reassessment 
of the process control plans by the establishment, the Agency will 
consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks associated 
with these actions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Policy Issuances Division
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-AD34
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



20. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 601 et seq PL 110-249, sec 11016


CFR Citation:


9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new)


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final regulations NLT 18 months after 
enactment of PL 110-246.


Abstract:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the 
FMIA. Amenable species must be inspected, so this rule will define 
inspection

[[Page 64171]]

requirements for catfish. The regulations will define ``catfish'' and 
the scope of coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments 
that process farm-raised species of catfish and to catfish and catfish 
products. The regulations will take into account the conditions under 
which the catfish are raised and transported to a processing 
establishment.


Statement of Need:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the 
FMIA. The Farm Bill directs the Department to issue final regulations 
implementing the FMIA amendments not later than 18 months after the 
enactment date (June 18, 2008) of the legislation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 and Public Law 110-246, sec. 11016


Alternatives:


The option of no rulemaking is unavailable. The Agency will consider 
alternative methods of implementation and levels of stringency, and the 
effects on foreign and domestic commerce and on small business 
associated with the alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS anticipates benefits from uniform standards and the more extensive 
and intensive inspection service that FSIS provides (compared with 
current voluntary inspection programs). FSIS would apply requirements 
for imported catfish that would be equivalent to those applying to 
catfish raised and processed in the United States.


Risks:


In preparing regulations on catfish and catfish products, the Agency 
will consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks 
associated with the production, processing, and distribution of the 
products. FSIS will determine, through scientific risk assessment 
procedures, the magnitude of the risks associated with catfish and how 
they compare with those associated with other foods in FSIS's 
jurisdiction.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
William Milton
Assistant Office of Catfish Inspection Programs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5735
Fax: 202 690-1742
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



21.  ELECTRONIC FOREIGN IMPORT CERTIFICATES AND SANITATION 
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS) REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL IMPORT 
ESTABLISHMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470);; Egg Products 
Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2, 327.4, ; 9 CFR 381.196, 391.197, 381.198;; 9 
CFR 590.915, 590.920


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing to amend meat, poultry, and egg products regulations 
to provide for the electronic submission of import product and 
establishment applications and certificates and delete the 
``streamlined'' inspection procedures for Canadian product. In 
addition, FSIS is amending its regulations to require Sanitation 
Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) in official import 
inspection establishments.


Statement of Need:


FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide for the electronic 
submission of import product and establishment certificates to allow 
the electronic interchange and transmission of data to Agency's 
computer-based Public Health Information System (PHIS), which is 
currently under development. Providing an electronic format for 
imported certificates will enable the government-to-government exchange 
of data between FSIS and foreign customs and inspection authorities. 
Sanitation SOPs are written procedures that are developed and 
implemented by establishments to prevent direct contamination or 
adulteration of meat or poultry products. Sanitation SOPs are required 
at official (domestic) establishments. Current regulations are 
ambiguous concerning Sanitation SOP requirements for official import 
inspection establishments. FSIS is proposing to require that official 
import inspection establishments comply with the Sanitation SOPs 
regulations to eliminate that ambiguity and ensure that products do not 
become contaminated as they enter this country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 
U.S.C. 1031-1056) and the regulations that implement these Acts.


Alternatives:


The electronic processing of import certifications is voluntary, 
therefore, importers still have the option of using the current paper-
based system. The Agency is proposing to require that official import 
inspection establishments adopt Sanitation SOPs to prevent direct 
contamination or adulteration of product. Therefore, no alternatives 
were considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The opportunity cost of not amending the regulations would hinder the 
Agency's implementation of PHIS. The amendments that provide for the 
electronic interchange of data are voluntary, so establishments will 
not take them on unless the benefits outweigh the costs. It has been 
the Agency's expectation that official import establishments will 
maintain Sanitation SOPs, this proposed rule codifies that expectation. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment on sanitation requirements will have 
no costs to the industry. The proposed rule will facilitate FSIS's use 
of the PHIS system, enabling the electronic transmission, issuance, and 
authorization of imported product data. The PHIS will enable FSIS 
import inspection personnel to

[[Page 64172]]

verify and authorize shipments using electronic data, reducing 
inspector workload. The electronic exchange of certificate data will 
help to reduce the fraudulent alteration or reproduction of 
certificates. The Agency estimates that the electronic processing of 
import certificates will reduce the data-entry time for import 
inspectors, by 50 to 60 percent.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD39
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



22.  ELECTRONIC EXPORT APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION AS A 
REIMBURSABLE SERVICE AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL 
EXPORT INSPECTION MARKS, DEVICES, AND CERTIFICATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695); Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470); Egg Products 
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1. 322.2, ; 9 CFR 381.104, 381.105, 381.106; 9 
CFR 590; 9 CFR 350.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the 
meat, poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide an 
electronic export application and certification process that will be 
available as an alternative to the paper-based application and 
certification method currently in use. The electronic export 
application and certification process will be available as a 
reimbursable inspection service. FSIS is also proposing to provide 
establishments that export meat, poultry, and egg products with 
flexibility in the official export inspection marks, and devices used 
and how the products are marked for export.


Statement of Need:


FSIS is proposing these regulations to implement the Public Health 
Information System (PHIS), a computer-based inspection information 
system currently under development. The PHIS will include automation of 
the export application and certification process. The current export 
application and certification regulations provide only for a paper-
based process, this proposed rule will amend the regulations to provide 
for the electronic process. Additionally, this rule is needed to 
provide this automated services as a reimbursable certification service 
charged to the exporter.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 
U.S.C. 1031-1056), and the regulations that implement these Acts. FSIS 
is proposing the electronic export application and certification 
process as a reimbursable service under the Agricultural Marketing Act 
7 U.S.C. 1622(h), that provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the 
authority to: ``inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality, 
quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or 
received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as 
the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, including assessment and 
collection of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be 
to cover the cost of the service rendered, to the end that agricultural 
products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be 
facilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality 
product which they desire.''


Alternatives:


The electronic processing of export applications and certifications is 
being proposed as a voluntary service, therefore, exporters have the 
option of continuing to use the current paper-based system. Therefore, 
no alternatives were considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS estimates that it will take inspection personnel 1 hour to process 
an electronic application and issue an electronic certificate. Based on 
a workload of accessing and processing an estimated 350,000 
applications/certificates per year, at a base time rate of $49.93 per 
hour, the cost of recouping the inspector's labor costs for 2009 would 
be $17.4 million. The amount charged to the exporter depends upon the 
number of electronic applications submitted. The use of the electronic 
export application and certificate system is voluntary. Therefore, 
exporters will not use this service unless the benefits outweigh the 
cost. The electronic export application and certificate process will 
reduce and expedite industry workload by eliminating the physical 
handling and processing of paperwork. The electronic exchange of export 
information between the U.S. and foreign governments will help reduce 
the fraudulent alternation or reproduction of certificates. The 
electronic system will process the applications and certificates will 
permit exporters to move their products faster, thereby increasing the 
amount of revenues received at a faster rate. The electronic system 
will provide a streamlined and integrated method of processing export 
applications and certificates.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No

[[Page 64173]]

Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD41
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




23. 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 Cost 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 at $470 to $575 million, with annual 
recurring costs at $150.4 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 at the median. 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 substantially 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

[[Page 64174]]

NPRM Comment Period End         05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/03/01                    66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End         09/10/01
Interim Final Rule              06/06/03                    68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/06/03
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    03/24/05                    70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End         05/09/05
Affirmation of Interim 
    Final Rule                  03/00/10
Final Action                    08/00/10

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 and Program 
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



24. FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246 (section 11015)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009.


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new voluntary Federal-
State cooperative inspection program under which State-inspected 
establishments with 25 or fewer employees would be eligible to ship 
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. State-inspected 
establishments selected to participate in this program would be 
required to comply with all Federal standards under the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). 
These establishments would receive inspection services from State 
inspection personnel that have been trained and certified to assist 
with enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 
produced under the program that have been inspected and passed by 
selected State-inspection personnel would bear a Federal mark of 
inspection. FSIS is proposing these regulations in response to the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, enacted on June 18, 2008 (the 2008 
Farm Bill). Section 11015 of 2008 Farm Bill provides for the interstate 
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry product from selected 
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate implementing 
regulations no later than 18 months from the date of its enactment


Statement of Need:


This action is needed to implement a new Federal-State cooperative 
program that will permit certain State-inspected establishments to ship 
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Inspection services 
for establishments selected to participate in the program will be 
provided by state inspection personnel that have been trained and 
certified in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) Meat and poultry 
products produced by establishments selected to participate in the 
program will bear a Federal mark of inspection.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under section 11015 of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) (PL-110-246). 
Section 11015 amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 
601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 
451, et seq.) to establish an optional Federal-State cooperative 
program under which State-inspected establishments would be permitted 
to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The law 
requires that FSIS promulgate implementing regulations no later than 18 
months after the date of enactment.


Alternatives:


1. No action: FSIS did not consider the alternative of no action 
because section 11015 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires that it promulgate 
regulations to implement the new Federal-State cooperative program. The 
Agency did consider alternatives on how to implement the new program.


2. Limit participation in the program to state-inspected establishments 
with 25 or fewer employees on average: Under the law, state-inspected 
establishments that have 25 or fewer employees on average are permitted 
to participate in the program. The law also provides that FSIS may 
select establishments that employ more than 25 but fewer than 35 
employees on average as of June 18, 2008 (the date of enactment) to 
participate in the program. Under the law, if these establishments 
employ more than 25 employees on average 3 years after FSIS promulgates 
implementing regulations, they are required to transition to a Federal 
establishment. FSIS rejected the option of limiting the program to 
establishment that employ 25 or fewer employees on average to give 
additional small establishments the opportunity to participate in the 
program and ship their meat of poultry products in interstate commerce.


3. Permit establishments with 25 to 35 employees on average as of June 
18, 2008, to participate in the program. FSIS chose the option of 
permitting these establishments to be selected to participate in the 
program to give additional small establishments the opportunity to ship 
their meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Under this 
option, FSIS will develop a procedure to transition any establishment 
that employs more than 25 people on average to a Federal establishment. 
Establishments that employee 24 to 35 employees on average as of June 
18, 2008, would be subject to the transition procedure beginning on the 
date three years after the Agency promulgates implementing regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the costs of this proposed rule to industry, FSIS, 
State and local governments, small entities, and foreign countries. 
Participation in the new Federal-State cooperative program will be 
optional. Thus, the costs and benefits associated with the proposed 
rule will depend on the number of States and establishments that chose 
to participate. Very small and certain small establishments State-

[[Page 64175]]

inspected establishments that are selected to participate in the 
program are likely to benefit from the program because they will be 
permitted sell their products to consumers in other States and foreign 
countries.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/16/09                    74 FR 47648
NPRM Comment Period End         11/16/09
Final Action                    09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
Rachel Edelstein
Director, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0399
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




25. RURAL ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE--SECTION 9009

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary shall establish a Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency 
Initiative (grant program) to provide financial assistance for the 
purpose of enabling eligible rural communities to substantially 
increase the energy self-sufficiency of the eligible rural communities.


Business Programs has the primary role in program implementation and 
will work in consultation with the Forest Service on Community Wood 
Energy Program. The Forest Service has operated a program in the past 
to assist rural school systems in the use of alternative fuels for 
heating physical plants. Their expertise will assist Rural Development 
in promulgating a valuable program, well suited to the needs of rural 
communities.


Statement of Need:


This is a new grant program authorized by the Farm Bill. The purpose of 
Section 9009, Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative, is to provide 
financial assistance to enable eligible rural communities to 
substantially increase the energy self-sufficiency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative was authorized by the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $5 
million annually in discretionary funding through 2012, but no funds 
have been made available to date.


Alternatives:


An alternative would be to publish a proposed rule without an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Farm Bill currently does not clearly 
define eligible rural communities or what eligible entities can apply 
on behalf of an eligible community. There are no maximum or minimum 
grant amounts set in this program. Additionally, the Farm Bill does not 
include any scoring requirements to determine who would receive a grant 
under the program. There are other program components not defined in 
the statute. Because of the limited discretionary funding for this 
program, scoring requirements would need to be determined based on 
extremely focused parameters. A determination would need to be made as 
to the size of the average project, particularly when you are 
considering a community submitting an application to develop and 
install an integrated renewable energy system. The program will need to 
clearly define an eligible rural community and what type of applicants 
would be eligible.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the notice. Other costs 
would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the rule. 
The Agency is confident that the regulations will contain sufficient 
safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and 
would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants 
considering applying for assistance under this program. Benefits 
accruing to the publishing of an advance notice would enable the Agency 
to use the public comments to develop a more focused proposed rule.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/09
NPRM                            07/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Local


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Anthony Ashby
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0661
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA77

[[Page 64176]]

_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




26. GRANTS FOR EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS 
WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS--SECTION 6023

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This is a new program created by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act 
of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the section is to provide 
grants to nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.


Statement of Need:


There is no existing program regulation. USDA Rural Business-
Cooperative Service (RBS) is promulgating regulations to implement 
section 6023. The regulation will provide assistance, which includes 
grants to nonprofit organizations or consortium of nonprofit 
organization that have a significant focus on serving the needs of 
individuals with disabilities. Assistance will be awarded on a 
competitive basis. Regulatory implementation may include certain 
existing requirements identified in 7 CFR for civil rights 
requirements, grant servicing requirements, and so forth.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals with 
Disabilities in Rural Areas is authorized by the Food, Conservation and 
Energy Act of 2008. The purpose of the section is to provide grants to 
nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment opportunities 
for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives to issuing a proposed regulation in order to 
allow the public opportunity to provide comments on the program 
requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulation will contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a 
benefit to the Agency as well as organizations who utilize the program.


Risks:


None noted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Andrew Jermolowicz
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3250
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-3250
Phone: 202 720-8460
Fax: 202-720-4641
RIN: 0570-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



27. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 9003

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of section 9003 is to assist in the development of new and 
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels. 
Advanced biofuels are fuels derived from renewable biomass other than 
corn kernel starch. The program will increase energy independence, 
promote resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and 
forestry products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in 
rural economies. Assistance includes grants and guaranteed loans. 
Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible entities 
include individuals, entities, Indians tribes, units of State or local 
governments, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations, 
association of agricultural producers, National Laboratories, 
institutions of higher learning, rural electric cooperatives, public 
power entities, or a consortium of any of the entities. Regulatory 
implementation may include certain requirements identified in existing 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service regulations for the Business and 
Industry Guaranteed Loan and the Rural Energy for America programs.


Statement of Need:


The program will increase energy independence, promote resource 
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products, 
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. The 
program was originally announced in the Federal Register as an Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 20, 2008.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Biorefinery Assistance program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $75,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009 and $245,000,000 in mandatory funding for 
2010, till expended. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided an 
authorization to appropriate up to $150,000,000 in discretionary 
funding for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides 
loan guarantees for the development, construction and retrofitting of 
commercial-scale biorefineries, and grants to help pay for the 
development and construction costs of demonstration-scale 
biorefineries. The purpose is to assist in the development of new and 
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.

[[Page 64177]]

Alternatives:


A Notice of Funding Availability was published in the Federal Register 
on November 20, 2008, to implement the program for fiscal year 2009. 
Permanent regulation need to be implemented to provide funding in 2010 
and further clarify of the program


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other 
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the 
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain 
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed 
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential 
applicants considering applying for payments under this program. 
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify 
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity 
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional 
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to 
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic 
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as 
the ownership criteria.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/20/08                    73 FR 70542
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/20/09
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William C. Smith
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 205-0903
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



28. RURAL BUSINESS RE-POWERING ASSISTANCE--SECTION 9004

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed action will encourage biorefineries existing at the time 
the 2008 Farm Bill became law to replace fossil fuels used to produce 
heat or power used in their operation by making payments for 
installation of new systems that use renewable biomass and/or new 
production of energy from renewable biomass.


Payments may be made under section 9004 to any biorefinery that meets 
the requirements of this section for a period determined by the 
Secretary. The Secretary shall determine the amount of payments to be 
made after considering factors addressing fossil fuel offsets and the 
cost effectiveness of renewable biomass systems.


Statement of Need:


The new regulations for the program will clarify the application 
process and definitively provide rules and regulation regarding the 
payment process. These changes are essential to clarify for 
verification and measurement of the energy produced which is the basis 
for eighty percent of payments under this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Repowering Assistance program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and, Energy Act of 2008, which made available $35,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 
was published on June 12, 2009, making $20 million available and $35 
million will be available in 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill also authorizes 
$15,000,000 in discretionary funding to be appropriated for each fiscal 
year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for the payments to 
provide incentives to biorefineries to use renewable biomass for heat 
and or power. The purpose is to reduce the dependence of biofuel 
producers on fossil fuels and to develop renewable biomass as an 
alternative energy source. The proposed new regulations are an 
administrative, rather than legislative, initiative.


Alternatives:


Other than issuing a NOFA with the possibility that all funds available 
for this program would be obligated, there is no alternative to issuing 
a proposed regulation. The proposed regulation provides an opportunity 
for public comments on aspects of the program such as level of 
payments, geographical eligibility, time frame of prospective payments 
and ownership criteria.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be benefit 
to the agency as well as potential applicants considering applying for 
payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the publishing from a 
proposed rule would be attributable to the opportunity of public 
comments which are believed to improve program payment target levels 
and shed light on the associated needs and applicants. Publication and 
refinement of measurement and verification protocols used in making 
payments is expected as result of comments and experience gained from 
initiating the program.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64178]]

Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Frederick Petok
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 690-0784
Fax: 202 720-2213
RIN: 0570-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



29. RURAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS FOR PAYMENTS FOR THE BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR 
ADVANCED BIOFUELS--SECTION 9005

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-234


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make payments to eligible producers to support and 
ensure an expanding production of advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels 
are defined as `fuel derived from renewable biomass other than corn 
kernel starch' in The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 
program will increase energy independence, promote resource 
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products, 
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. To 
receive a payment, an eligible producer shall enter into a contract 
with the Secretary of Agriculture for production of advanced biofuels. 
The basis for payments under this program are the quantity and duration 
of production of biofuel produced by an eligible producer, the net 
nonrenewable energy content of the advanced biofuel, and other 
appropriate factors as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.


Statement of Need:


The new regulations for the program known as the Bioenergy Program for 
Advanced Biofuels will clarify the application process, eligibility, 
payment formula's and eligible products and provide substantive rules 
and regulation regarding the payment process. These regulations are 
essential to allow for verification and measurement of the advanced 
biofuel development promoted by this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program was authorized by 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made mandatory 
funding available of $55,000,000 in for fiscal year (FY) 2009, 
$55,000,000 in FY 2010, $85,000,000 in FY 2011 and $105,000,000 in FY 
2012. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published on June 12, 
2009 and that made $35 million available in 2009. The remaining $20 
million will be available in 2010 in addition to $55 million for 2010, 
included in the Farm Bill. An additional $25,000,000 in discretionary 
funding is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year 2009 
through 2012 may be made available. The program provides for the 
payments to support and ensure expanding the production of advanced 
biofuels.


Alternatives:


A NOFA was published in June 2009 for immediate program implementation. 
Permanent regulations are required to provide funding for 2010.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other 
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the 
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain 
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed 
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential 
applicants considering applying for payments under this program. 
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify 
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity 
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional 
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to 
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic 
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as 
the ownership criteria.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diane Berger
Loan/Grant Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 260-1508
Fax: 202-720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



30. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM--SECTION 9007

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 4280-B; 7 CFR 4280-D


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA)) is being 
replaced with a new program titled the Rural Energy for America Program 
(REAP), section 9007 of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
The new program will provide grants for energy audits and renewable 
energy development assistance; and financial assistance for energy 
efficiency improvements and renewable energy

[[Page 64179]]

systems. The program will increase energy independence, promote 
resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry 
products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural 
economies. Eligible entities based on the sub-program of the sub-
section include units of State, tribal, or local government; land grant 
or other institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives 
or public power entities; agricultural producers; rural small 
businesses; and any similar entity as determined by the Secretary. The 
bill directs that at least 20 percent of funds be used for grants of up 
to $20,000 each. The bill merges the energy audit program and the 
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements programs.


The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) intends to publish a 
proposed rule to implement changes to RD Instruction 4280-B and the 
Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance grant 
regulations in RD Instruction 4280-C. The changes will incorporate 
provisions from the Farm Bill and other initiatives intended to enhance 
program delivery and Agency oversight.


Statement of Need:


Changes are needed to the regulation for the program known as the Rural 
Energy for America Program (REAP), due to the changes required by the 
2008 Farm Bill. The program was previously called the Renewable Energy 
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement program and was created by 
the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to the change in the title of the 
program, several regulatory changes are needed for REAP as outlined 
above. These changes are required to comply with current statutes. The 
program was implemented utilizing a notice of funding availability in 
FY 2009. Permanent regulation is required to implement the program in 
2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Rural Energy for America program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $55,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009, $60,000,000 mandatory funding for 2010, 
$70,000,000 mandatory funding for 2011 and 2012. The Farm Bill 
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 in discretionary funding for 
each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for grants and 
guaranteed loan for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency 
improvements, and grants for feasibility studies and energy audit and 
renewable energy development assistance. The purpose of the program is 
to reduce the energy consumption and increase renewable energy 
production. The regulations are an administrative and a legislative 
initiative.


Alternatives:


There is no alternative to issuing a proposed regulation, which allows 
the public an opportunity to provide comments on the program 
requirements. Permanent regulations are required to provide funding in 
2010.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a 
benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants considering 
applying for payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the 
publishing from a proposed rule would be attributable to the 
opportunity of public comments which are believed to improve program 
implementation and impact.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Kelley Oehler
Deputy Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 720-6819
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA76
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




31. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 6022

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) includes 
Section 6022 establishing the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 
Program (RMAP). The Act mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture 
establish a program to make loans and grants to support 
microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of rural 
microenterprises. The Act further mandates that entities will use funds 
borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than $50,000 to 
rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the Agency will make 
grants to provide business based training and technical assistance; and 
that the Agency will provide funding to improve the capacity of rural 
Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) to provide services to 
rural microenterprise clients.


Upon enactment of the Act, a committee was formed to discuss policy, 
implementation, and processes needed to move the program forward. In 
mid-January, 2009 a listening forum was held at USDA. The object of the 
listening forum was to allow public comment regarding the statute and 
to obtain opinions regarding the implementation of the program. The 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Business Programs is currently 
preparing a proposed rule with an anticipated publication date of late 
December 2009. The proposed rule is based on verbiage in the statute, 
comments made at the listening forum, research of similar-but not the 
same- types of programs within USDA and at other agencies, and the 
experience of the writers, one of whom worked in or managed Federal

[[Page 64180]]

microentrepreneurship programs for 13 years. The goal of the proposed 
rule is to obtain public comment, revise the rule accordingly, and 
ensure a sound program. Comments received from the proposed rule will 
be used as a basis for publication of a final rule which is anticipated 
for the spring of 2010.


The proposed rule will include instructions for the management of loan 
and grant programming and for the management of the ultimate recipient 
microloan portfolio. Any organization receiving a loan under the 
program will be expected to capitalize a revolving loan fund which will 
make loans of $50,000 or less to ultimate recipients. Any organization 
that receives a loan will also be automatically eligible to receive a 
grant so that it may provide an integrated program of micro-level 
lending coupled with business based training and technical assistance 
for its microborrowers. Grants will also be provided to build the 
capacity of rural MDOs so that they may improve their operations and 
services for the end users, or so that they may improve the operational 
capacity of other MDOs to provide services to end users.


This program will require a complete new set of regulations.


Statement of Need:


The new regulation for the program will be user friendly and responsive 
to industry comments. Publication of the proposed rule is crucial to 
program implementation. The program will directly create new 
businesses, assist with the expansion of existing microbusinesses (for 
purposes of this program, a microenterprise is a rural business that 
employs 10 or fewer Full Time Employees (FTE)), create jobs, increase 
the flow of tax dollars to rural communities, and add lasting value in 
terms of rural community impact.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The RMAP was authorized by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 
2008. The Act establishes the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 
Program and mandates that the new program will make loans and grants to 
support microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of 
rural microenterprises. It further mandates that entities will use 
funds borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than 
$50,000 to rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the 
Agency will make grants to provide business based training and 
technical assistance; and that the Agency will provide funding to 
improve the capacity of rural MDOs to provide services to rural 
microenterprise clients.


The purpose of the program is to increase access to capital and 
business based training in rural areas for rural business owners and 
potential business owners at the start up and micro levels.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule process is our only current route for implementation. 
Funding for the initial four years (2009-2012) of the program is 
mandatory and FY2009 funding will be expendable in FY2010. The proposed 
rule will allow the Agency to use both years' funding in the inaugural 
year of program implementation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


Initial costs include the cost of the listening conference; staff time; 
and the cost of the regulation writing contractor that works in close 
concert with staff.


Ongoing costs include a minimal increase of one FTE, and space for 
same, at the National Office level. The state offices are not currently 
under consideration for more FTEs as a result of this program.


Other costs will/do include the cost of automation of distribution of 
funding, loan servicing, grant servicing, repayment systems, and 
oversight systems. The assigned office (Specialty Programs Division) 
has been working with the Information Technology (IT) offices to 
implement the program through RULSS which is the newer generation of 
agency automation systems and is the most flexible in terms of meeting 
the needs of the statute. Finally, Training will be required for field 
staff.


Cost Mitigation--To mitigate implementation costs the proposed rule has 
considered existing programs to ensure that implementation will be less 
process based and more results driven when compared to other programs. 
Automated processes will help ensure efficiency. Use of existing field 
staff will keep new FTEs to a minimum.


Benefits:


The initial benefits to program implementation include the addition of 
a small rural business lending program that increases access to Rural 
Development programming by adding to the starting end of the business 
financing continuum of services. The program allows Rural Development 
to open its doors to rural clients at the very beginning level of the 
business start-up and initial growth phases, and provide assistance to 
businesses that are often too small to be considered viable for a bank 
loan. The long term benefits to program implementation include long 
term availability of this new pathway to assist rural start-up 
businesses; increased access to business capital in rural areas, at a 
grass roots level, and often to pre-bankable ultimate recipients; 
expansion of business opportunities in rural areas; increased tax flow 
as businesses become profitable; increased job creation and rural job 
retention as new and existing microbusinesses sprout and grow; support 
of micro level entities producing organic food product, locally grown 
food product, and locally manufactured goods for intra and interstate 
export; service industry growth; increased opportunity for rural youth; 
and legal immigrants; and increased exposure of Rural Development 
funding programs to the target constituency.


Mandatory funding is set at $4 million for FY2009; $4 million for 
FY2010; $4 million for FY2011; and $3 million for FY2012. The statute 
authorizes up to $40 million per year for each of the years in addition 
to mandatory funding.


Risks:


Program risks include making of loans and grants to multiple types of 
entities for multiple purposes with a singular goal; ability to select 
appropriately capable lending and training entities; reliance on 
selected entities for sound microloan underwriting and appropriate 
portfolio management; and availability of enough grant funding for 
ongoing technical assistance in the out years. We anticipate mitigating 
these risks via sound regulatory guidance, appropriate training, and 
clear communication of expectations to selected participants. Further, 
the statute is based in part on a successful non-USDA program of a 
similar nature with which many of the stakeholders and selected 
participants will be familiar providing this agency with a level of 
confidence.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/07/09                    74 FR 51714
NPRM Comment Period End         11/23/09
Final Rule                      02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64181]]

Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jody Raskind
Director, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 690-1400
Email: [email protected]

Lori Washington
Loan Specialist, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9815
Fax: 202 720-2213
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA71
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S

[[Page 64182]]




DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget details how this 
Administration plans to lift our economy out of recession, and lay a 
new foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. The Department of 
Commerce (the ``Department'' or ``Commerce'') is aligning itself to 
contribute to both of these goals.
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce is one of the oldest 
Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. The Department's 
mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity 
by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and 
environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which are 
responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and services, 
ranging from trade promotion and economic development assistance to 
broadband and the National Weather Service. The Department currently 
employs approximately 53,000 people around the world, although this 
workforce will more than double temporarily in 2010, due to the 
decennial census.
The Department touches Americans daily, in many ways -- making possible 
the daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology 
that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; 
supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of information 
essential to competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies 
and goods found in America's and the world's marketplace, and 
supporting environmental and economic health for the communities in 
which Americans live.
Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role in 
the federal government, and for its roles supporting the American 
people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, the Department 
works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and 
workers to:
 Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science 
            and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean 
            exploration, to broadband deployment and by protecting 
            American innovations through the patent and trademark 
            system;
 Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling 
            community development and strengthening minority businesses 
            and small manufacturers;
 Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global 
            marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing 
            field for U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology 
            transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and 
            security interests;
 Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's 
            resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
            opportunities; and
 Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding 
            of the economy by providing accurate economic and 
            demographic data.
The Department is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and 
Cabinet-level voice for job creation.
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 actions for FY 2010. 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.
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
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 and climate 
services vital to public safety and to the Nation's economy, such as 
weather forecasts, drought 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 U.S. economy while 
conserving the resources in the public trust and 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 threatened and endangered marine and anadromous 
species and 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 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,

[[Page 64183]]

assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource 
management, adaptation 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 and 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: 
understanding climate change science and impacts, and communicating 
that understanding to government and private sector stakeholders 
enabling them to adapt; continually improving 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. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 
nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans 
to issue in fiscal year 2010, 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. NOAA issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. 
Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its 
rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic 
highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, 
are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing 
opportunities on healthy 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 catch 
shares, which permit share holders to harvest a quantity of fish and 
which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the 
best available 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.
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 provisions of 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 Department's significant regulatory actions, and 
thus are included in this year's Regulatory Plan. The four actions 
implement provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, as reauthorized in 2006. The first action may be of 
particular interest to international

[[Page 64184]]

trading partners as it concerns the Certification of Nations Whose 
Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated 
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources. A description 
of the four Regulatory Plan actions is provided below.
Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal, 
Unreported or Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine 
Resources (0648-AV51). NOAA's 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 would be identified in a biennial report 
to Congress, as required under Section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS would subsequently 
certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate corrective 
action with respect to the activities of its fishing vessels.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions and 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act Disaster Assistance Programs (0648-
AW38). This final rule would clarify the fishery disaster assistance 
provisions under both the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. The 
regulations would establish definitions, characteristics of commercial 
fishery failures and fishery resource disasters, and the administrative 
process NMFS will follow in processing disaster assistance requests.
Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 
(0648-AW72). The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 
includes species such as cod, haddock and various flounders. This long-
term plan will implement the necessary reductions to end overfishing as 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act.
Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program (0648-AX13). 
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as 
reauthorized in 2006, included a section on Limited Access Privilege 
Programs (LAPPs). To assist the Councils in developing and implementing 
LAPPs, this rulemaking includes guidance on: (1) procedures for 
developing LAPPs; (2) eligibility criteria; (3) Council approval of 
LAPP programs; (4) initial allocations; (5) restrictions on the sale 
and lease of privileges; (6) recovery of administrative costs; and (7) 
program review and monitoring.
At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the 
identified Regulatory Plan actions as several of these actions are 
currently under development.
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

                              -----------




32. AMENDMENT 16 TO THE NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1801 et seq


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 648


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would implement management measures to continue rebuilding 
overfished stocks, revise biological reference points, and develop 
annual catch limits and accountability measures. This action would also 
adopt new sectors as an alternative effort control to days-at-sea 
restrictions.


Statement of Need:


Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP) was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council 
(Council) as part of the biennial adjustment process established in the

[[Page 64185]]

FMP to evaluate the status of the all NE multispecies stocks; update 
status determination criteria for all NE multispecies stocks based upon 
the best scientific information available; and to revise management 
measures necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished NE 
multispecies stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of 
increased effort controls. In addition, this action would adopt 
rebuilding programs for four NE multispecies stocks newly classified as 
being overfished and subject to overfishing and incorporate Atlantic 
wolffish into the management unit. Finally, Amendment 16 would 
establish procedures for specifying allowable biological catch (ABC) 
and annual catch limits (ACLs) and implement accountability measures 
(AMs) for each stock managed by the FMP, as required by recent 
revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.


Alternatives:


Amendment 16 includes numerous measures designed to achieve the goals 
and objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including 
reporting and record keeping requirements, allocation criteria, effort 
controls, and administrative and enforcement provisions. Each measure 
includes a range of alternatives, including the no action alternative. 
Of particular note, Amendment 16 authorizes 17 new sectors and revises 
measures for the existing two sectors and. In addition, Amendment 16 
includes six options for potential sector contributions (i.e., the 
stock allocations that each individual vessel could bring to a 
particular sector). Amendment 16 also includes four options for non-
sector effort controls and three alternatives for commercial non-sector 
accountability measures. Finally, the Council considered several 
additional management measures under Amendment 16, including several 
alternative management regimes such as area-based management and a 
days-at-sea (DAS) performance plan, but these provisions were not 
included in this action at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with measures under Amendment 16 are 
described in detail within the associated draft environmental impact 
statement (EIS). A final EIS that would include updated analysis of 
economic impacts of this action is currently being developed for 
submission and review by NMFS. Due to uncertainty in the number of 
vessels that may participate in sectors, it is difficult to precisely 
quantify the economic impacts of this action. However, should all 
affected vessels elect not to participate in sectors and remain under 
the current DAS management regime, the potential adverse economic 
impacts are expected to be about $15.5 million. Potential benefits of 
Amendment 16 include: Ending overfishing and ensuring that overfished 
stocks rebuild within established rebuilding time periods, developing a 
comprehensive procedure to establish ABCs and ACLs for each stock that 
more systematically incorporates both biological and management 
uncertainty into the FMP, increasing the accuracy and timeliness of 
catch monitoring data throughout the fishery, and increasing the 
efficiency and economic return of vessel operations by promoting 
participation in sectors. Costs associated with this action include 
additional monitoring and reporting costs for vessels; additional 
administration and membership costs to vessels participating in 
sectors; costs associated with complying with new gear requirements in 
some areas; opportunity costs associated with continued effort controls 
necessary to rebuild overfished stocks; and increased administration, 
monitoring, and enforcement costs to implement sector management.


Risks:


The risks associated with not implementing measures proposed in 
Amendment 16 include the potential for continued overfishing on several 
stocks and delayed rebuilding of overfished stocks beyond established 
rebuilding timelines. Moreover, the continuation of existing measures 
would maintain exclusive reliance upon DAS measures to manage the 
fishery, forgoing efficiency gains resulting from expanded 
participation in sectors, one form of a catch-share management regime. 
Further, without this rulemaking, the NE Multispecies FMP would not be 
able to establish a process for setting ABCs, ACLs, and AMs for managed 
stocks by 2011, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Finally, 
because this action would incorporate Atlantic wolffish into the FMP 
and specify management measures to rebuild this species, failure to 
implement this action could increase the likelihood that this species 
would be listed under the Endangered Species Act and result in 
substantial economic impacts beyond those considered under this action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Availability          10/23/09                    74 FR 54773
Comment Period End              12/22/09
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         01/00/10
Final Rule                      03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia A. Kurkul
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
55 Great Republic Way
Gloucester, MA 01930
Phone: 978 281-9200
Fax: 978 281-9117
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AW72
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA



33. PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAM

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.

[[Page 64186]]

Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to propose 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 
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 in developing 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 USC 561, 16 USC 773 et seq., and 16 USC 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 Cost 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 LAPPs 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. 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                            05/00/10

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
Fax: 301 713-0596
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 0648-AV48
RIN: 0648-AX13
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




34. CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED IN 
ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED OR UNREGULATED 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:


None


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 (NOAA) National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes regulations to set forth 
identification and certification procedures for nations whose vessels 
engage in illegal, 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 they 
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 USC 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.

[[Page 64187]]

Anticipated Cost 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 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                            01/14/09                     74 FR 2019
NPRM Comment Period End         05/14/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Christopher Rogers
Division Chief
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-9090
Fax: 301 713-9106
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 0648-AV23
RIN: 0648-AV51
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--NOAA



35. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT PROVISIONS 
AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1861; 16 USC 4107


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 600


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA), as amended, and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries 
Act (IFA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes 
regulations to govern the application for and determination of 
commercial fishery failures as a basis for acquiring potential disaster 
assistance. The regulations would establish definitions and 
characteristics of commercial fishery failures, serious disruptions 
affecting future production, and harm incurred by fishermen, fishery 
resource disasters, requirements for initiating a review by NMFS, and 
the administrative process it will follow in processing such 
applications. The intended effect of these procedures and requirements 
is to clarify the fishery disaster assistance provisions of the MSA and 
the IFA through rulemaking and thereby facilitate the processing of 
requests.


Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to propose this rule to govern 
the requests for determinations of fishery resource disasters as a 
basis for acquiring potential disaster assistance. The regulations 
would establish definitions and characteristics of commercial fishery 
failures, fishery resource disasters, serious disruptions affecting 
future production, and harm incurred by fishermen, as well as 
requirements for initiating a review by NMFS, and the administrative 
process it will follow in processing such applications. The intended 
result of these procedures and requirements is to clarify and interpret 
the fishery disaster assistance provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA) through rulemaking and thereby 
ensure consistency and facilitate the processing of requests.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NMFS is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking 
authority under sections 312(a) or 315 of the MSA (16 USC 1861, 1864), 
as amended, and sections 308(b) or 308(d) of the IFA (16 USC 4107).


Alternatives:


N/A


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development, 
no analysis has been completed at this time to assess 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 disaster determinations 
can be made on an ad hoc basis, without regard to any standardized 
guidelines or procedures.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/15/09                     74 FR 2478
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    02/06/09                     74 FR 6257
NPRM Comment Period End         02/17/09
NPRM Comment Period End         04/20/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal

[[Page 64188]]

Agency Contact:
Charles L. Cooper
Program Leader
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2396
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AW38
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S

[[Page 64189]]




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), 
ten Unified Combatant Commands, fourteen Defense Agencies, and ten DoD 
Field Activities. It has 1,417,747 military personnel and 731,592 
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2009, 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 regulatory 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 it 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 reacting 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:
 Revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
            (DFARS) to delete obsolete restrictions on contracting with 
            foreign entities for the performance of research and 
            development in connection with any weapon system or other 
            military equipment for DoD.
 Review of the DFARS requirements for reporting the loss, 
            theft, damage, or destruction of Government property.
 Review of the DFARS requirements for reporting Government 
            Furnished Equipment and Government Furnished Material in 
            the DoD Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry.
 Review of the DFARS requirements for Unique Item Identifier 
            marking of Government-furnished Equipment.
 Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of patents, data, and 
            copyrights, dramatically reducing the amount of regulatory 
            text and the number of required clauses.
 Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of multiyear 
            acquisitions.
 Finalize the DFARS rule that makes the required changes to 
            conform the DFARS to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
            (FAR) implementation of the OFPP waivers of certain 
            statutory requirements when acquiring of COTS items.
 Improve the contract closeout process.
2. Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
Of interest to Small Businesses are regulations to:
 Revise the FAR and DFARS to implement the use of Electronic 
            Subcontracting Reporting System for both summary and 
            individual subcontracting reporting.
 Consider revisions to the FAR to address the findings of the 
            Rothe case that Federal contracting programs for minority-
            owned and other small businesses that implement 10 U.S.C. 
            2323 are ``facially unconstitutional.''
 Revise the FAR to implement changes in the HUBZone Program, in 
            accordance with Small Business Administration regulations.
 Revise the FAR to clarify the criteria for sole source awards 
            to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses 
            concerns.
3. Regulations with International Effects or Interest
Of international effect or interest are regulations to:
 Finalize the FAR rule implementing the American Recovery and 
            Reinvestment Act of 2009 buy American requirements for 
            construction material.
 Finalize the DFARS rule that prohibits procurement of steel 
            for construction projects or activities for which American 
            steel producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been 
            denied the opportunity to compete for such steel 
            procurement.
 Implement in the DFARS the determinations regarding 
            participation of South Caucasus/Central and South Asian 
            states in acquisitions in support of operations in 
            Afghanistan.
 Finalize the DFARS rule that provides authority to limit 
            competition in the acquisition of products or services, 
            other than small arms, acquired in support of operations in 
            Iraq or Afghanistan.
 Clarify in the DFARS the criteria for deciding whether a 
            company is located in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 Consider whether to revise the DFARS regulations relating to 
            acquisition of spare or replacement parts from the original 
            foreign manufacturer.
 Revise the DFARS to implement the pending Defense Procurement 
            Trade Cooperation Treaties with the United Kingdom and 
            Australia, upon ratification.
 Finalize the DFARS rule that implements the determination that 
            authorizes acquisition of articles containing para-aramid 
            fibers and yarns manufactured in a qualifying country, in 
            accordance with section 807 of the National Defense 
            Authorization Act for FY 1999.
 Revise the FAR and DFARS list of least designated countries 
            under the Trade Agreements Act to add Taiwan,

[[Page 64190]]

            Peru, Costa Rica, and Oman (FAR only).
 Revise the FAR list of articles that are domestically non-
            available.
 Finalize the FAR rule that prohibits Federal contractors from 
            restricted business operations in Sudan and imports from 
            Burma.
 Finalize the FAR rule that prohibits Government contracts with 
            any foreign incorporated entity that is treated as an 
            inverted domestic corporation under section 835(b) of the 
            Homeland Security Act of 2002 or any subsidiary of such 
            entity.
4. 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 six 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 acquisition, security, homeowners, education, health 
affairs, and the National Security Personnel System.
1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues 
to lead Government efforts to:
 Finalize the FAR rules that implement the regulations relating 
            to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- 
            Reporting Requirements, Publicizing Contract Actions, 
            Whistleblower Protection, and GAO/IG Access to Contractor 
            Employees.
 Revise the DFARS to implement the Weapons System Acquisition 
            Reform Act of 2009 -- including acquisition strategies to 
            ensure competition throughout life-cycle of major defense 
            acquisition programs and address organizational conflicts 
            of interest in major defense acquisition programs.
 Revise DFARS to ensure continuation of contractor services in 
            support of mission essential functions during an emergency, 
            such as an influenza pandemic.
 Revise the FAR to implement the Executive Orders relating to 
            project labor agreements, allowability of labor relations 
            costs, non-displacement of qualified workers, and 
            notification of employee rights under Federal labor laws.
 Revise the FAR to address service contractor employee personal 
            conflicts of interest and organizational conflicts of 
            interest and limit contractor access to information.
 Revise the FAR to establish a Federal database for Federal 
            agency contract and grant officers and suspension and 
            debarment officials, to track information relating to 
            awardees of Federal contracts and grants.
 Revise the FAR to require contractors to verify, through the 
            use of the E-Verify System, that certain of their employees 
            are eligible to work in the United States.
 Enhance competition by:
 -- Limiting the length of contracts awarded non-competitively under 
            ``unusual and compelling urgency'' circumstances to the 
            minimum contract period necessary to meet requirements, not 
            to exceed one year, unless approved by the head of the 
            contracting activity.
 -- Requiring publication of notices on FedBizOpps of all sole source 
            task or delivery orders in excess of the simplified 
            acquisition thresholds that are placed against multiple 
            award contracts or multiple award blanket purchase 
            agreements.
 -- Requiring post-award debriefings be provided, as requested, to 
            disappointed offerors on task and delivery orders in excess 
            of $5 million (including options).
 -- Requiring public disclosure of justification and approval documents 
            for noncompetitive contracts.
 Provide enhanced competition for task and delivery order 
            contracts and additional market research before awarding a 
            task or delivery order in excess of the simplified 
            acquisition threshold.
2. Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published or plans to publish rules on 
contractors supporting the military in contingency operations:
 Interim Final Rule: Private Security Contractors (PSCs) 
            Operating in Contingency Operations. In order to meet the 
            mandate of Section 862 of the 2008 National Defense 
            Authorization Act, this rule establishes policy, assigns 
            responsibilities and provides procedures for the regulation 
            of the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and 
            conduct of personnel performing private security functions 
            under a covered contract during contingency operations. It 
            also assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures 
            for incident reporting, use of and accountability for 
            equipment, rules for the use of force, and a process for 
            administrative action or the removal, as appropriate, of 
            PSCs and PSC personnel. DoD published an interim final rule 
            on July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34690-34694) with an effective date 
            of July 17, 2009. The comment period ended August 31, 2009.
 Proposed Rule: Program Management of Operational Contract 
            Support for Contingency Operations. This rule will 
            incorporate the latest changes and lessons learned into 
            policy and procedures for program management for the 
            preparation and execution of contracted support and the 
            integration of DoD contractor personnel into military 
            contingency operations outside the United States. DoD 
            anticipates publishing the proposed rule in the first or 
            second quarter of FY 2010.
3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense

[[Page 64191]]

The Department of Defense has published a rule to assist eligible 
military and civilian Federal employee homeowners:
 Interim Final Rule: This rule continues to authorize the 
            Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) under section 3374 of 
            title 42, United States Code, to assist eligible military 
            and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the real 
            estate market is adversely affected by closure or 
            reduction-in-scope of operations. In accordance with DoD 
            Directive 5101.1, DoD Executive Agent,`` designates the 
            Secretary of the Army as the DoD Executive Agent for 
            administering, managing, and executing the HAP. 
            Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of 
            Defense to temporarily expand the existing HAP in 
            compliance with section 1001 of the American Recovery and 
            Reinvestment Act of 2009. This temporary expansion covers 
            certain persons affected by BRAC 2005, certain persons on 
            permanent change of station orders, and certain wounded 
            persons and surviving spouses. This rule updates policy, 
            delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for 
            managing Expanded HAP. This is an economically significant 
            rule. The interim final rule was published September 30, 
            2009 (74 FR 50109), with an effective date of September 30, 
            2009. The comment period ended October 30, 2009. DoD 
            anticipates publishing a final rule in the third quarter of 
            FY 2010.
4. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published or plans to publish a rule 
implementing the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, 
title V, P.L. 110-252 (the ``Post-9/11 GI Bill''):
 Interim Final Rule: This rule establishes policy, assigns 
            responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for carrying 
            out the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It establishes policy for the 
            use of supplemental educational assistance ``kickers,'' for 
            members with critical skills or specialties, or for members 
            serving additional service; for authorizing the 
            transferability of education benefits; and for the DoD 
            Education Benefits Fund Board of Actuaries. DoD published 
            an interim final rule on June 25, 2009 (74 FR 30212-30220) 
            with an effective date of June 25, 2009. The comment period 
            ended July 27, 2009.
5. 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 health care 
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 has published or plans to publish the 
following rules:
 Final rule on CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Inclusion of TRICARE Retail 
            Pharmacy Program in Federal Procurement of Pharmaceuticals. 
            This rule implements changes directed by the enactment of 
            National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
            (NDAA-08), Pub. L. 110-181, to the extent necessary to 
            ensure pharmaceuticals, paid for by the DoD that are 
            provided by pharmacies under the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy 
            Program (TRRx) to eligible beneficiaries, are subject to 
            the pricing standards under section 8126 of title 38 United 
            States Code. This is an economically significant rule. The 
            proposed rule was published July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43394). 
            The comment period ended September 23, 2008. The final rule 
            published March 17, 2009 (74 FR 11279-11293) with an 
            effective date of May 26, 2009.
 Final 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 proposed rule was published 
            April 1, 2008 (73 FR 17271). The comment period ended June 
            2, 2008. The final rule published December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
            74945-74966) with an effective date of February 9, 2009. 
            DoD published a notice on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6228) 
            delaying the effective date of the final rule to May 1, 
            2009 and re-opening the final rule for comment. The comment 
            period ended March 9, 2009. DoD then published a notice May 
            8, 2009 (74 FR 21547) responding to the comments received. 
            The effective date of the final rule remained May 1, 2009.
 Final rule on TRICARE: Relationship Between the TRICARE 
            Program and Employer-Sponsored Group Health Coverage. This 
            rule implements section 1097c of title 10, United States 
            Code. This law prohibits employers from offering incentives 
            to TRICARE-eligible employees to not enroll, or to 
            terminate enrollment, in an employer-offered Group Health 
            Plan (GHP) that is or would be primary to TRICARE. 
            Cafeteria plans that comport with section 125 of the 
            Internal Revenue Code will be permissible so long as the 
            plan treats all employees the same and does not illegally 
            take TRICARE eligibility into account. The proposed rule 
            was published March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16612). The comment 
            period ended May 27, 2008. DoD anticipates publishing a 
            final rule in the first quarter of FY 2010.
 Final rule on TRICARE: Authorization of Forensic Examinations. 
            This rule implements section 701 of the John Warner 
            National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007, Public Law 
            109-364. Section 701 amends Title 10 of the United States 
            Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 55, Section 1079(a) by authorizing 
            coverage for forensic examinations following a sexual 
            assault or domestic violence for eligible beneficiaries. 
            This authorizes forensic examinations provided in civilian 
            health care facilities (e.g., civilian rape crisis 
            facilities) following sexual assault or domestic

[[Page 64192]]

            violence, which is consistent with the services that are 
            authorized in Military Medical Treatment Facilities for all 
            beneficiaries who are victims of sexual assault or domestic 
            violence. The proposed rule was published July 7, 2008 (73 
            FR 38348-38350). The comment period ended September 5, 
            2008. The final rule published July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34649-
            34696) with an effective date of August 17, 2009.
6. National Security Personnel System, Department of Defense
On November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66115-66164), the Department of Defense and 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued final regulations to 
establish the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), a human 
resources management system, within DoD, as 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 legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. 
L. 110-181, January 28, 2008) required revision of the NSPS regulation. 
DoD and OPM published a proposed rule on May 22, 2008 (73 FR 29882-
29927). The period for public comment ended on June 23, 2008. The final 
rule published September 26, 2008 (73 FR 56344-56420) with an effective 
date of October 7, 2008. A correction to the final rule effective date 
published on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58435). The effective date was 
corrected to November 25, 2009.
DoD and OPM published a proposed rule on December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73606-
73716) to add a Staffing and Employment subpart to the final rule that 
was published on September 26, 2008. The period for public comment 
ended on January 2, 2009. The final rule published January 16, 2009 (74 
FR 2757-2770) with an effective date of March 17, 2009.
On July 16, 2009, a task group under the Defense Business Board (DBB) 
made recommendations to significantly alter the National Security 
Personnel System (NSPS). The final report of the DBB will be to the 
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The 
recommendations may be adopted or rejected. If adopted, some of the 
recommendations may be implemented under the current regulation. 
However, it is likely that the regulation will require substantial 
revision
DoD and OPM anticipate publishing a proposed rule in late winter 2010 
and a final rule in the fall of 2010, to be effective 60 days after 
final action.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOD--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




36.  HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HAP)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 3374


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 239


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule continues to authorize the Homeowners Assistance Program 
(HAP) under section 3374 of title 42, United States Code, to assist 
eligible military and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the 
real estate market is adversely affected by closure or reduction-in-
scope of operations. In accordance with DoD Directive 5101.1, DoD 
Executive Agent,`` designates the Secretary of the Army as the DoD 
Executive Agent for administering, managing, and executing the HAP.


Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of Defense to 
temporarily expand the existing Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) in 
compliance with The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(ARRA). This temporary expansion covers certain persons affected by 
BRAC 2005, certain persons on permanent change of station (PCS) orders, 
and certain wounded persons and surviving spouses. This rule updates 
policy, delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for managing 
Expanded HAP.


Statement of Need:


This rule continues to authorize the Homeowners Assistance Program 
(HAP) under section 3374 of title 42, United States Code, to assist 
eligible military and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the 
real estate market is adversely affected by closure or reduction-in-
scope of operations. It updates policy, delegates authority, and 
assigns responsibilities for managing HAP. In accordance with DoD 
Directive 5101.1, ``DoD Executive Agent,'' designates the Secretary of 
the Army as the DoD Executive Agent for administering, managing, and 
executing the HAP.


Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of Defense to 
temporarily expand the existing HAP in compliance with section 1001 of 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This rule 
updates policy, delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for 
managing Expanded HAP.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 U.S.C. 3374


Alternatives:


Required by 42 U.S.C. 3374. No alternatives considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There is no cost to the public. Administrative costs to the Department 
of Defense for implementation of the authorities under this rule are 
eight percent of the $555 million appropriated to fund the Expanded 
HAP. Workload will be accomplished with additional staffing and will be 
integrated into normal business.


Risks:


The rule will allow the Department of Defense to expand HAP to assist 
military families and DoD civilians who recently sold their homes at a 
loss. This temporary expansion covers certain persons affected by BRAC 
2005, certain persons on permanent change of station orders, and 
certain wounded persons and surviving spouses.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              09/30/09                    74 FR 50109
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   09/30/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          10/30/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period 
    Extended                    11/16/09                    74 FR 58846
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/15/10
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64193]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Deanna Buchner
Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3000
Phone: 703 602-4353
RIN: 0790-AI58
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S

[[Page 64194]]




DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. Introduction
We support States, local communities, institutions of higher education, 
and others in improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure 
that all Americans receive a quality education. We provide leadership 
and financial assistance pertaining to education at all levels to a 
wide range of stakeholders and individuals including State educational 
agencies, early childhood programs, elementary and secondary schools, 
institutions of higher education, vocational schools, nonprofit 
organizations, members of the public, and many others. These efforts 
are helping to ensure that all students will be ready for college and 
careers, and that all students have an open path towards postsecondary 
education. We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of 
Federal civil rights laws in education programs and activities that 
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovation and 
research, evaluation, and dissemination of findings to improve the 
quality of education.
Overall, the programs we administer will affect nearly every American 
during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2009-2010 school year about 50 
million students will attend an estimated 100,000 elementary and 
secondary schools in approximately 13,900 public school districts, and 
about 19 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary 
schools. All of these students may benefit from some degree of 
financial assistance or support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, and approaches to compliance related to our programs, we 
are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. 
Specifically, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the 
general public 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.
We also 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 it is necessary to develop regulations, 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), an electronic single Governmentwide 
access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the public to submit 
comments on different types of Federal regulatory documents and read 
and respond to comments submitted by other members of the public during 
the public comment period. This system provides the public the 
opportunity to submit 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.
We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the 
burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make 
information easily accessible to the public.
II. Regulatory Priorities
 A. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation 
designed to stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in 
critical sectors, including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for 
education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies 
that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-
term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased 
productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides funding for several key formula and discretionary 
grant programs for which the Department will be issuing final 
regulatory requirements in the next several months. These programs are 
as follows:
1. Investing in Innovation Fund. The Investing in Innovation Fund, 
            established under section 14007 of the ARRA, provides $650 
            million to support (a) local educational agencies (LEAs), 
            and (b) nonprofit organizations in partnership with one or 
            more LEAs or a consortium of schools. The purpose of the 
            program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with 
            strong track records in improving student achievement, in 
            order to expand what works and invest in promising 
            practices that significantly improve student achievement in 
            kindergarten through grade 12, as well as help close 
            achievement gaps, decrease drop-out rates, increase high 
            school graduation rates, and improve the effectiveness of 
            teachers and school leaders.
2. School Improvement Grants. In conjunction with Title I funds for 
            school improvement reserved under section 1003(a) of the 
            Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended 
            (ESEA), School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of 
            the ESEA are used to improve student achievement in Title I 
            schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
            restructuring in order to enable those schools to make 
            adequate yearly progress and exit improvement status. 
            Appropriations for School Improvement Grants have grown 
            from $125 million in fiscal year (FY) 2007 to $546 million 
            in FY 2009. The ARRA provides an additional $3 billion for 
            School Improvement Grants in FY 2009. The Department is 
            finalizing requirements that will govern the total $3.546 
            billion in FY 2009 school improvement funds. This 
            unprecedented investment of Federal money has the potential 
            to support implementation of fundamental changes needed to 
            turn around some of the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.
3. Teacher Incentive Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund, established in 
            2006, supports performance-based teacher and principal 
            compensation systems in high-need schools, primarily 
            through grants to school districts and consortia of school 
            districts. The combined ARRA and FY 2009 appropriation for 
            this program is approximately $300 million.
 B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the ESEA that will 
build on many of the reforms States and LEAs will be implementing under 
the ARRA grant programs described above. As necessary, we intend to 
amend current regulations to reflect the reauthorization of this 
statute. In the interim we may propose other amendments to the current 
regulations.
 C. Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009
We expect Congress to enact, and appropriate funds for, several 
components of the President's education

[[Page 64195]]

agenda. The House passed H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2009, in September, and the Senate is expected to 
move similar legislation this year. If the legislation is passed, we 
expect to propose regulations in the coming months to implement it.
New Programs: The new programs included in the House bill that would 
require regulations include the following:
 The College Access and Completion Fund, to build a Federal-
            State-local partnership to improve college success and 
            completion, particularly for students from disadvantaged 
            backgrounds.
 The American Graduation Initiative, to promote innovations and 
            reforms in our nation's community colleges, including 
            modernization of community college facilities and the 
            development of online educational resources.
 The Early Learning Challenge Fund, to provide competitive 
            grants to States for the development of statewide 
            infrastructure of integrated early-learning supports and 
            services for children from birth through age 5.
Student Loans: H.R. 3221 would also enact the President's proposal to 
originate 100 percent of new student loans under the Direct Loan 
program, under which the Federal Government provides capital for 
student loans. The bill would terminate the origination of loans under 
the Federal Family Education Loan program, under which the Federal 
Government currently guarantees loans made by the private sector. This 
bill also includes a proposal to transform the current Perkins Loan 
program from a separate program of revolving funds based at individual 
institutions of higher education into a subset of the Direct Loan 
program.
 D. Higher Education Opportunity Act
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), enacted on August 14, 
2008, amended and extended the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). 
During the coming year, we plan to amend our regulations to address 
several key issues, including issues related to program integrity and 
foreign schools. As necessary we may also amend our regulations for 
several discretionary grant programs to reflect changes made by the 
HEOA.
Unless subject to an exemption, regulations to carry out changes to the 
student financial aid programs under Title IV of the HEA must generally 
go through the negotiated rulemaking process.
 E. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
We plan to issue final regulations implementing changes to the Part C 
program--the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities--under the IDEA.
 F. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Given the President's emphasis on improving the collection and use of 
data as a key element of educational reform, we are reviewing the 
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and its 
implementing regulations to ensure that States are able to effectively 
establish and expand robust statewide longitudinal data systems while 
protecting student privacy. If necessary, we will amend our current 
FERPA regulations.
 G. Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress may take up legislation to reauthorize the Adult Education and 
Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) (Title II of the Workforce Investment Act 
of 1998) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Administration is 
working with Congress to ensure that any changes to these laws (1) 
improve 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 (2) 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.
III. Principles for Regulating
Over the next year, other regulations may be needed because of new 
legislation or programmatic changes. In developing and promulgating 
regulations we follow our Principles for Regulating, which 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 regulations or with limited regulatory action.
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 subject to regulation are so 
            diverse that a uniform approach through regulation does 
            more harm than good.
 Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal 
            interest; that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used 
            for their intended purpose, and to eliminate fraud, waste, 
            and abuse.
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 coordination of federally funded activities with 
            State and local reform activities.
 Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
 To the extent possible, establish performance objectives 
            rather than specify compliance behavior.
 Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible, so 
            institutional forces and incentives achieve desired 
            results.
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




37.  TEACHER INCENTIVE FUND--PRIORITIES, REQUIREMENTS, 
DEFINITIONS, AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 111-5; ESEA title V, part D, subpart 1 (20 USC 7243); PL 111-8, 
division F, title III


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection

[[Page 64196]]

criteria for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which supports performance-
based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools, 
primarily through grants to school districts and consortia of school 
districts.


Statement of Need:


The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are needed to implement the TIF program and to conduct a 
competition to award funds under this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5.


Alternatives:


The Department is still developing this proposed rule; our discussion 
of alternatives will be included in the notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimates of the costs and benefits are currently under development and 
will be published in the proposed rule.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Butler
Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Room 3E108
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202
Phone: 202 260-2274
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1810-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--OESE

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




38.  SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS--NOTICE OF PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS 
UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009; TITLE I OF 
THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


20 USC 6303(g)


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary has proposed requirements for School Improvement Grants 
authorized under section 1003(g) of title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), and funded through 
both the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2009, and the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The proposed 
requirements would define the criteria that a State educational agency 
(SEA) must use to implement the statutory priority that the SEA award 
school improvement funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the 
lowest-achieving title I schools that demonstrate (a) the greatest need 
for the funds and (b) the strongest commitment to use those funds to 
provide adequate resources to their lowest-achieving title I schools to 
raise substantially the achievement of their students. The proposed 
requirements also would require an SEA to give priority, through a 
waiver under section 9401 of the ESEA, to LEAs that wish to serve the 
lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not 
receive, title I funds. The proposed requirements would require an SEA 
to award school improvement funds to eligible LEAs in amounts 
sufficient to enable the targeted schools to implement one of four 
specific proposed interventions.


Statement of Need:


The proposed requirements are needed to implement the School 
Improvement Grants program in a manner that the Department believes 
will best enable the program to achieve its objective of supporting 
comprehensive and effective efforts by LEAs to overcome the challenges 
faced by low-achieving schools that educate concentrations of children 
living in poverty.


Summary of Legal Basis:


20 USC 6303(g).


Alternatives:


A likely alternative to promulgation of the proposed requirements would 
be for the Secretary to allocate the FY 2009 school improvement funds 
without setting any regulatory requirements governing their use. Under 
such an alternative, States and LEAs would be required to meet the 
statutory requirements, but funds likely would not be targeted to the 
very lowest-achieving schools and LEAs would likely not use all the 
funds for activities most likely to result in a real turn-around of 
those schools and significant improvement in the educational outcomes 
for the students they educate.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department believes that the proposed requirements will not impose 
significant costs on States, LEAs, or other entities that receive 
school improvement funds. These proposed requirements would drive 
school improvement funds to LEAs that have the lowest-achieving schools 
in amounts sufficient to turn those schools around and significantly 
increase student achievement. They would also require participating 
LEAs to adopt the most effective approaches to turning around low-
achieving schools. In short, the Department believes that the proposed 
requirements would ensure that limited school improvement funds are put 
to their optimum use--that is, that they would be targeted to where 
they are most needed and used in the most effective manner possible. 
The benefits, then, would be more effective schools serving children 
from low-income families and a better education for those children.


The Department believes that the State and local costs of implementing 
the proposed requirements (including State costs of applying for 
grants, distributing the grants to LEAs, ensuring compliance with the 
proposed requirements, and reporting to the

[[Page 64197]]

Department; and LEA costs of applying for subgrants and implementing 
the interventions) will be financed through the grant funds. The 
Department does not believe that the proposed requirements would impose 
a financial burden that States and LEAs would have to meet from non-
Federal sources.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/26/09                    74 FR 43101
NPRM Comment Period End         09/25/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Zollie Stevenson Jr.
Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Room 3W230
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202-6132
Phone: 202 260-1824
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1810-AB06
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




39.  INVESTING IN INNOVATION--PRIORITIES, REQUIREMENTS, 
DEFINITIONS, AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 111-5


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary of Education proposes priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing in Innovation 
Fund, authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 (Pub. L. 111-5). These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are intended to support the efforts of local 
educational agencies and nonprofit organizations that have strong 
records of improving student achievement to develop, implement, 
evaluate, and replicate innovative programs and practices.


Statement of Need:


These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are needed to implement the Investing in Innovation Fund and 
to conduct a competition to award funds under this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5.


Alternatives:


The Department considered a variety of possible priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria before deciding to 
propose those included in the notice. The proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those that the 
Department believes best capture the purposes of the program while 
clarifying what the Secretary expects the program to accomplish and 
ensuring that program activities are aligned with Departmental 
priorities. The proposals would also provide eligible applicants with 
flexibility in selecting activities to apply to carry out under the 
program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would result in selection of high-
quality applications to implement activities that are most likely to 
have a significant national impact on educational reform and 
improvement. Through these proposals, the Department seeks to provide 
clarity as to the scope of activities we expect to support with program 
funds and the expected burden of work involved in preparing an 
application and implementing a project under the program. The pool of 
possible applicants is very large; during school year 2007-08, 9,729 
LEAs across the country (about 65 percent of all LEAs) made adequate 
yearly progress. Although not every one of those LEAs would necessarily 
meet all the eligibility requirements, the number of LEAs that would 
meet them is likely to be in the thousands.


The Department believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would 
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants. The costs of carrying out 
activities would be paid for with program funds and with matching funds 
provided by private-sector partners. Thus, the costs of implementation 
would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small 
entities.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Margo Anderson
Department of Education
Office of Innovation and Improvement
Room 4W311
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202
Phone: 202 205-3010
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1855-AA06
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S

[[Page 64198]]




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;
 Advance energy efficiency and conservation;
 Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons;
 Provide a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy 
of nuclear weapons production;
 Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic 
competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in 
science and technology.
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
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (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. The standards already issued in 2009 have a net 
benefit to the nation of up to $84 billion over 30 years. By 2042, 
these standards will have saved enough energy to operate all U.S. homes 
for over two years.
On February 5, 2009, the President issued a memorandum noting that the 
Department is subject to a consent decree as a result of litigation in 
which 14 States and various other entities brought suit alleging that 
the Department had failed to comply with deadlines and other 
requirements in the EPCA. The President noted further that the 
Department remained subject to outstanding deadlines with respect to 15 
of the 22 product categories covered by the consent decree, as well as 
statutory deadlines for a number of additional product categories. As a 
result, the President requested that the Department take all necessary 
steps, consistent with the consent decree and applicable law, to 
finalize legally required efficiency standards as expeditiously as 
possible and consistent with all applicable judicial and statutory 
deadlines. Most immediate were the five energy efficiency rules with 
deadlines prior to and including August 8, 2009; with respect to 
standards subject to judicial and statutory deadlines later than August 
8, 2009, the President requested that the Department work to complete 
prior to the applicable deadline those standards that will result in 
the greatest energy savings.
On August 5, 2009, DOE issued a final rule establishing energy 
conservation standards for bottled or canned beverage vending machines. 
Issuance of this rulemaking marked the completion, either on or prior 
to the required deadline, of the five energy efficiency rules with 
legal deadlines prior to and including August 8, 2009, as set forth in 
the President's February 2009 memorandum.
In response to the President's request regarding rulemakings with 
deadlines later than August 8, 2009, the Department continues to follow 
its schedule for setting new appliance efficiency standards. These 
rulemakings are expected to save American consumers billions of dollars 
in energy costs. The five-year plan to implement the schedule outlines 
how DOE will address the appliance standards rulemaking backlog and 
meet the statutory requirements established in EPCA and the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). 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 20 products in the backlog. The plan also provides for setting 
appliance standards for products required under EPACT 2005.
The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the 
Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005 that was released on 
January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2009 report 
to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The reports to 
Congress are posted at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance--standards/schedule--setting.html.
The August 2009 report identifies all products for which DOE has 
complied with or 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. 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
The regulatory actions included in this Regulatory Plan for small 
electric motors and commercial clothes washers provide significant 
benefits to the Nation. DOE believes that the benefits to the Nation of 
the proposed energy standards for small electric motors (energy 
savings, consumer average life-cycle cost savings, national net present 
value increase, and emission reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of 
industry net present value and life-cycle cost increases for some 
consumers). DOE estimates that these regulations will produce an energy 
savings for polyphase motors between 0.08 quads (seven-percent discount 
rate) and 0.17 quads (three-percent discount rate) over thirty years 
and an energy savings for capacitor-start motors between 0.51 quads 
(seven-percent discount rate) and 1.11 quads (three-percent discount 
rate) over thirty years. The benefit to the Nation for polyphase motors 
will be between $60 million (seven-percent discount rate) and $560 
million (three-percent discount rate). The benefit to the Nation for 
capacitor-start motors will be between $1.47 billion (seven-percent 
discount rate) and $13.59 billion (three-percent discount rate).
DOE believes that the benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy 
standards for commercial clothes washers (energy and water savings, 
consumer average life-cycle cost savings, national net present value 
increase, and emission reductions) also outweigh the costs (loss of 
industry net present value and life-cycle cost increases for some 
consumers). DOE estimates that these regulations will produce an energy 
savings up to 0.15 quads over thirty years and national water savings 
up to

[[Page 64199]]

190 billion gallons of water consumption over thirty years. The benefit 
to the Nation will be between $500 million (seven-percent discount 
rate) and $1.2 billion (three-percent discount rate).
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




40. ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6291 to 6309; 41 USC 6311 to 6317


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, February 28, 2010, Consent Decree.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act to provide that the Secretary of Energy prescribe 
testing requirements and energy conservation standards for those small 
electric motors for which the Secretary determines that standards would 
be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
result in significant energy savings. As a result of DOE's analysis, on 
July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38799), the Secretary made such a determination 
for small electric motors. This rulemaking will determine whether it is 
appropriate to establish energy conservation standards for small 
electric motors.


Statement of Need:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires minimum energy 
efficiency standards for appliances, which has the effect of 
eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311--6317) 
establishes a similar program for certain types of commercial and 
industrial equipment, which includes small electric motors. Currently, 
no mandatory Federal energy conservation standards apply to small 
electric motors.


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 the statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


DOE believes that the benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy 
standards for small electric motors (energy savings, consumer average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings, national net present value (NPV) 
increase, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV 
and LCC increases for some small electric motor users). DOE estimates 
that energy savings from electricity will be between 0.59 quads and 
1.23 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between 
$1.53 billion and $14.15 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting, 
    Framework Document 
    Availability                08/10/07                    72 FR 44990
Notice: Public Meeting, 
    Data Availability           12/30/08                    73 FR 79723
NPRM                            12/00/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


Comments pertaining to this rule may be submitted electronically to 
small--electric --motors--std.rulemaking @ee.doe.gov.


URL For More Information:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/commercial/small--
electric--motors.html

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
James Raba
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-8654
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB71
RIN: 1904-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--EE

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




41. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6313(e)(2)(A)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2010.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to determine 
whether the existing standards for commercial clothes washers should be 
amended. Commercial clothes washers were previously included in a 
rulemaking with residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and 
Microwave ovens. On October 17, 2008, DOE published a NPRM for these 
products (73 FR 62034). Commenters subsequently alleged certain data 
problems affecting DOE's rulemaking analyses. DOE's preliminary 
assessment suggested that these concerns might be valid, thereby 
necessitating additional, supplemental rulemaking analyses. DOE is 
separating the commercial clothes washers energy conservation standard 
from the cooking products rulemaking and plans to issue

[[Page 64200]]

standards for commercial clothes washers by the statutory deadline.


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:


Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311--6317) 
establishes an energy conservation program for a variety of commercial 
and industrial equipment including commercial clothes washers. (42 
U.S.C. 6312; 6313(e)) EPCA sets both energy and water efficiency 
standards for commercial clothes washers, and authorizes DOE to amend 
both. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) Section 136(a) and (e) of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) added commercial clothes washers as equipment 
covered under EPCA and established standards for such equipment that is 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 
6313(e)) These amendments to EPCA also require that DOE issue a final 
rule by January 1, 2010, to determine whether these standards should be 
amended. (EPACT 2005, section 136(e); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) If amended 
standards are justified, they would become effective no later than 
January, 2013.


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 Cost and Benefits:


DOE believes that the benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy 
standards for commercial clothes washers (energy and water savings, 
consumer average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings, national net present 
value (NPV) increase, and emissions reductions) outweigh the costs 
(loss of INPV and LCC increases for some consumers). DOE estimates that 
energy savings from electricity and natural gas will be up to 0.15 
quads over 30 years and the national water savings will range up to 190 
billion gallons over 30 years. The benefit to the Nation will be 
between $500 million and $1.2 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/17/08                    73 FR 62033
NPRM Comment Period End         12/16/08
Supplemental NPRM               11/09/09                    74 FR 57738
Supplemental NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  12/09/09
Final Action                    01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www1.eere.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/commercial/clothes--
washers.html

URL For Public Comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/

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: Split from 1904-AB49
RIN: 1904-AB93
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S

[[Page 64201]]




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal 
Government's principal agency charged with protecting the health of all 
Americans and providing essential human services. HHS responsibilities 
include: Medicare, Medicaid, support for public health preparedness and 
emergency response, biomedical research, substance abuse and mental 
health treatment and prevention, assurance of safe and effective drugs 
and other medical products, protection of our Nation's food supply, 
assistance to low income families, the Head Start program, services to 
older Americans, and direct health services delivery.
These programs constitute a substantial portion of the priorities of 
the federal government, and, as such, the HHS budget represents almost 
a quarter of all federal outlays, and the Department administers more 
grant dollars than all other agencies combined.
Since assuming the leadership of HHS this year, Secretary Kathleen G. 
Sebelius has sought to prioritize efforts to prepare the country for 
H1N1 influenza, enhance security of the nation's food supply, implement 
regulation of tobacco, stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and ensure that 
those affected get the care and support they need, and successfully 
build the country's healthcare infrastructure through distribution of 
$167 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009. Further, the Secretary has worked closely with the President 
on the Administration's efforts to enact meaningful reform of the 
country's health care system, and the Department will focus 
considerable effort on implementation of health care reform once passed 
by the Congress.
The Department's regulatory priorities in the upcoming fiscal year 
reflect the above goals, and include:
Tobacco Regulation
Each year in the United States, over 440,000 people die as a result of 
cigarette smoking. This represents one in every five deaths in adults. 
Reducing our nation's tobacco use will save lives, reduce health care 
costs, and help reduce suffering from heart and lung diseases, cancer, 
and other tobacco-related illnesses. As directed by the Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary would re-establish 
the bulk of the provisions of the August 1996 final rule restricting 
access to and promotion of tobacco products to minors when many adult 
smokers begin their tobacco use habits.
Food Safety
The Department is committed to making dramatic improvements in our food 
safety system. These efforts are guided in part by the recent findings 
of the President's Food Safety Working Group which adopted a public-
health approach based on three core principles: prioritizing 
prevention, strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving 
response and recovery if prevention fails. The goal of this new agenda 
is to shift emphasis away from mitigating public health harm by 
removing unsafe products from the market place, to a new overriding 
objective -- preventing harm by keeping unsafe food from entering 
commerce in the first place. Progress has already begun on this new 
strategy. One example is the recent egg safety rule, which requires 
science-based measures to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis contamination 
of shell eggs at the farm, as well as safe handling temperature 
controls throughout the distribution chain. We intend to continue this 
focus on prevention with upcoming rules on produce safety and Good 
Manufacturing Practices modernization. The Department also looks 
forward to continuing work with the Congress to transform our nation's 
approach to food safety and strengthen our ability to prevent foodborne 
illness.
Mental Health Parity
Congress passed and the President signed legislation in October of 2008 
that was a major step forward in improving access to mental health and 
substance abuse services for those who need them by requiring that all 
financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental 
health and substance use disorders are no more restrictive than those 
requirements and limitations placed on physical benefits. Critical to 
the implementation of the law is the issuance of regulations to help 
employers and insurers understand what is required of them. The 
Secretary has directed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
(CMS) to work with the Departments of Treasury and Labor to craft these 
regulations so as to guide employers and insurers on how to implement 
this statute and meet the important goal of furthering the integration 
of mental health and substance abuse services into primary health care.
Medicare Modernization
The Regulatory Plan highlights three final rules that would adjust 
payment amounts under Medicare for physicians' services, hospital 
inpatient and hospital outpatient services for fiscal year 2011. These 
new payment rules reflect continuing experience with regulating these 
systems, and will implement modernizations to ensure that the Medicare 
program best serves its beneficiaries, fairly compensates providers, 
and remains fiscally sound.
Healthcare Information Technology
Broad use of electronic health records has the potential to improve 
health care quality, prevent medical errors, increase the efficiency of 
care provision and reduce unnecessary health care costs, increase 
administrative efficiencies, decrease paperwork, and improve population 
health. Towards achieving these benefits, the Department will 
promulgate a proposed rule that would provide financial incentives to 
certain providers that meaningfully implement electronic health 
records, and an interim final rule that sets standards for such records 
that will enhance their interoperability, functionality, and utility.
Additionally, the Department will issue a proposed rule to implement 
privacy provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic 
and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act that will strengthen privacy and 
security protections that govern how health information is used and 
disclosed in the face of the modernization of health recordkeeping.
Streamlining Drug & Device Requirements
Three Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed rules would 
standardize the electronic submission of clinical study data, medical 
device registrations, and adverse event reports. These rules will 
enable the FDA to more quickly and efficiently process and review 
information submitted, furthering their ability to both better protect 
the public safety and more rapidly advance new innovations to the 
market.

[[Page 64202]]

_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




42. STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH 
INFORMATION; MODIFICATIONS TO THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE UNDER THE HEALTH 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC AND CLINICAL HEALTH ACT

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 111-5, secs 13400 to 13410


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 160; 45 CFR 164


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, February 17, 2010.


Abstract:


The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights 
will issue rules to modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule as necessary to 
implement the accounting provisions of Section 13405(c) of the Health 
Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (Title XIII 
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).


Statement of Need:


The Office for Civil Rights will issue rules to modify the HIPAA 
Privacy rule to implement the privacy provisions in sections 13400-
13410 of the Health Information technology for economic and clinical 
health Act (Title XIII of division a of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5). these regulations will 
improve the privacy and security protection of health information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Subtitle D of the Health Information Technology for Economic and 
Clinical Health Act (Title XIII of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009) requires the Office for Civil Rights to 
modify certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules to 
implement sections 13400-13410 of the Act.


Alternatives:


The Office for Civil Rights is statutorily mandated to make 
modifications to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules to implement the 
privacy provisions at sections 13400-13410 of the Health Information 
Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (Title XIII of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


These modifications to the HIPAA Privacy Rule are intended to benefit 
health care consumers by strengthening the privacy and security 
protections that govern how their health information is used and 
disclosed by HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. The 
Agency believes that there may be costs associated with the regulations 
that will affect HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. 
These may include costs to redraft existing business associate 
contracts as well as for the training on new policies and procedures as 
a result of these regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
Andra Wicks
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 202 205-2292
Fax: 202 205-4786
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0991-AB57
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--OS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




43.  HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: INITIAL SET OF STANDARDS, 
IMPLEMENTATION SPECIFICATIONS, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR 
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD TECHNOLOGY (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A 
SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 300jj-14


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 170


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, December 31, 2009, Interim final rule.


Abstract:


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the 
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, will issue an 
interim final rule with a request for comments to adopt an initial set 
of standards, implementation specifications, and certification 
criteria, as required by section 3004(b)(1) of the Public Health 
Service Act.


Statement of Need:


This interim final rule represents the first round of what will be an 
incremental approach to adopting standards, implementation 
specifications, and certification criteria for health information 
technology. The certification criteria adopted in this initial set 
establish the technical capabilities and related standards that 
certified electronic health record (EHR) technology will need to 
include in support of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 3004(b)(1) of the PHSA requires the Secretary to adopt an 
initial set of standards, implementation specifications, and 
certification criteria by 12/31/09. This interim final rule is being 
published to meet this requirement.


Alternatives:


No alternatives are available because the issuance of this regulation 
is required by statute.

[[Page 64203]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We anticipate that there will be costs incurred as a result of the 
interim final rule to prepare health information technology for 
certification.


Benefits include improved interoperability and increased health 
information technology adoption.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Steven Posnack
Policy Analyst
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Secretary
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
200 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 202 690-7151
RIN: 0991-AB58
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




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

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 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.


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. Electronic submission of study data 
would improve patient safety and 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 Cost 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                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 64204]]

Agency Contact:
Martha Nguyen
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Bldg. 51, Room 6224
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Phone: 301 796-3471
Fax: 301 847-8440
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AC52
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



45. ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION AND LISTING FOR DEVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-85; PL 107-188, sec 321; PL 107-250, sec 207; 21 USC 360(a) 
through 360(j); 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 regulations at 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the electronic 
submission requirements in section 510(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (the Act). Section 510(p) was added to the Act by 
section 207 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 
2002 (MDUFMA), and later amended in September 2007 by section 224 of 
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). 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 registration and listing to a paperless process. However, 
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. The proposed rule also would amend part 807 to 
reflect the timeframes for device establishment registration and 
listing established by sections 222 and 223 of FDAAA, and to reflect 
the requirement in section 510(i) of the Act, as amended by section 321 
of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
Response Act (BT Act), that foreign establishments provide FDA with 
additional pieces of information as part of their registration.


Statement of Need:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the 
electronic submission requirements in section 510(p) of the Act, which 
was added by section 207 of MDUFMA and later amended by section 224 of 
FDAAA. FDA also is proposing to amend 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the 
requirements in section 321 of the BT Act for foreign establishments to 
furnish additional information as part of their registration. 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 Act.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the 
registration and listing regulations. Because of the new FDAAA 
statutory requirements, and the advances in data collection and 
transmission technology, FDA believes this rulemaking is the preferable 
alternative.


Anticipated Cost 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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
WO-66 Room 4436
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 796-5739
Fax: 301 847-8144
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF88
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



46.  PRODUCE SAFETY REGULATION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 342; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration is proposing to promulgate regulations 
setting enforceable standards for fresh produce safety at the farm and 
packing house. The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk 
of illness associated with contaminated fresh produce. The proposed 
rule will be based on prevention-oriented public health principles and 
incorporate what we have learned in the past decade since the agency 
issued general good agricultural practice guidelines entitled ``Guide 
to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and 
Vegetables'' (GAPs Guide). The proposed rule also will reflect comments 
received on the agency's 1998 update of its GAPs guide and its July 
2009 draft commodity specific

[[Page 64205]]

guidances for tomatoes, leafy greens, and melons. Although the proposed 
rule will be based on recommendations that are included in the GAPs 
guide, it does not make the entire guidance mandatory. FDA's proposed 
rule would, however, set out clear standards for implementation of 
modern preventive controls. The proposed rule also would emphasize the 
importance of environmental assessments to identify hazards and 
possible pathways of contamination and provide examples of risk 
reduction practices recognizing that operators must tailor their 
preventive controls to particular hazards and conditions affecting 
their operations. The requirements of the proposed rule would be scale 
appropriate and commensurate with the relative risks and complexity of 
individual operation. FDA intends to issue guidance after the proposed 
rule is finalized to assist industry in complying with the requirements 
of the new regulation.


Statement of Need:


FDA has determined that enforceable standards (as opposed to voluntary 
recommendations) for the production and packing of fresh produce are 
necessary to ensure best practices are commonly adopted.


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)). The agency has promulgated regulations that respond to a 
number of the provisions of the 1986 amendments. This final rule would 
address additional provisions of these amendments.


Alternatives:


An alternative to this rulemaking would be to update FDA's 1998 GAPs 
Guide. However, even though the 1998 guidance has been well received 
and widely adopted, outbreaks associated with fresh produce continue. 
Outbreak investigations also continue to observe conditions and 
practices that are not consistent with the voluntary recommendations. 
FDA believes a regulation containing clear, enforceable standards would 
be more effective in ensuring best practices are widely adopted.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA estimates that the costs to more than 300,000 domestic and foreign 
producers and packers of fresh produce from the proposal would include 
one-time costs (e.g., new tools and equipment) and recurring costs 
(e.g., monitoring, training, recordkeeping). FDA anticipates that the 
benefits would be a reduction in foodborne illness and deaths 
associated with fresh produce. Monetized estimates of costs and 
benefits are not available at this time.


Risks:


This regulation would directly and materially advance the Federal 
Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for illness and 
death associated with foodborne infections resulting from the 
consumption of contaminated fresh produce. Less restrictive and less 
comprehensive approaches have not been effective in reducing the 
problems addressed by this regulation. FDA anticipates that the 
regulation would lead to a significant decrease in foodborne illness 
associated with fresh produce in the U.S.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Samir Assar
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Office of Food Safety
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1636
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG35
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



47.  MODERNIZATION OF THE CURRENT FOOD GOOD MANUFACTURING 
PRACTICES REGULATION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 342; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 110


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend its 
current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) regulations (21 CFR part 
110) for manufacturing, packing, or holding human food. This proposed 
rule would require food facilities to address issues such as 
environmental pathogens, food allergens, mandatory employee training, 
and sanitation of food contact surfaces. The proposed rule also would 
require food facilities to develop and implement preventive control 
systems. FDA is taking this action to better address changes that have 
occurred in the food industry and thereby protect public health.


Statement of Need:


FDA last updated its food CGMP regulations for manufacturing, packing 
or holding of human food in 1986. Modernizing these food CGMP 
regulations to more explicitly address issues such as environmental 
pathogens, food allergens, mandatory employee training, and sanitation 
of food contact surfaces, as well as risk-based preventive controls, 
would be a critical step in raising the standards for food production 
and distribution. By amending 21 CFR 110 to modernize good 
manufacturing practices, the agency could focus the attention of food 
processors on measures that have been proven to significantly reduce 
the risk of food-borne illness. An amended regulation also would allow 
the agency to better focus its regulatory efforts on ensuring industry 
compliance with controls that have a significant food safety impact.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA's legal authority to amend its CGMP regulations derives in part 
from sections 402(a)(3), (a)(4) and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic

[[Page 64206]]

Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3), (a)(4), and 371(a)). Under section 
402(a)(3) of the Act, a food is adulterated if it consists in whole or 
in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is 
otherwise unfit for food. Under section 402(a)(4), a food is 
adulterated if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary 
conditions whereby it may have become 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:


An alternative to this rulemaking is not to update the CGMP 
regulations, and instead to issue guidance on best practices regarding 
environmental pathogens, food allergens, mandatory employee training, 
sanitation of food contact surfaces, and risk-based preventive 
controls. However, guidance is voluntary and unenforceable. FDA 
believes a regulation containing clear, enforceable standards would be 
more effective in ensuring protection of public health.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA estimates that the costs from the proposal to domestic and foreign 
producers and packers of processed foods would include new one-time 
costs (e.g., adoption of written food safety plans, setting up training 
programs, implementing allergen controls, and purchasing new tools and 
equipment) and recurring costs (e.g., auditing and monitoring suppliers 
of sensitive raw materials and ingredients, training employees, and 
completing and maintaining records used throughout the facility). FDA 
anticipates that the benefits would be a reduced risk of foodborne 
illness and deaths from processed foods and from a reduction in the 
number of safety related recalls.


Risks:


This regulation will directly and materially advance the federal 
government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for illness and 
death associated with foodborne infections. Less restrictive and less 
comprehensive approaches have not been effective in reducing the 
problems addressed by this regulation. The regulation will lead to a 
significant decrease in foodborne illness in the U.S.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Paul South
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317)
Office of Food Safety
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1640
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG36
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




48. INFANT FORMULA: CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES; QUALITY 
CONTROL PROCEDURES; NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS; RECORDS AND REPORTS; AND 
QUALITY FACTORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 350a; 21 USC 371; . . .


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 106 and 107


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The agency published a proposed rule on July 9, 1996, that would 
establish current good manufacturing practice regulations, quality 
control procedures, quality factors, notification requirements, and 
records and reports for the production of infant formula. This proposal 
was issued in response to the 1986 Amendments to the Infant Formula Act 
of 1980. On April 28, 2003, FDA reopened the comment period to update 
comments on the proposal. The comment period was extended on June 27, 
2003, to end on August 26, 2003. The comment period was reopened on 
August 1, 2006, to end on September 15, 2006.


Statement of Need:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revising its infant formula 
regulations in 21 CFR Parts 106 and 107 to establish requirements for 
current good manufacturing practices (CGMP), including audits; to 
establish requirements for quality factors; and to amend FDA's quality 
control procedures, notification, and record and reporting requirements 
for infant formula. FDA is taking this action to improve the protection 
of infants who consume infant formula products.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Infant Formula Act of 1980 (the 1980 act) (Pub. L. 96-359) amended 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to include Sec.  412 
(21 U.S.C. 350a). This law is intended to improve protection of infants 
consuming infant formula products by establishing greater regulatory 
control over the formulation and production of infant formula. In 1982, 
FDA adopted infant formula recall procedures in subpart D of 21 CFR 
part 107 of its regulations (47 FR 18832, April 30, 1982), and infant 
formula quality control procedures in subpart B of 21 CFR Part 106 (47 
FR 17016, April 20, 1982). In 1985, FDA further implemented the 1980 
act by establishing subparts B, C, and D in 21 CFR Part 107 regarding 
the labeling of infant formula, exempt infant formulas, and nutrient 
requirements for infant formula, respectively (50 FR 1833, January 14, 
1985; 50 FR 48183, November 22, 1985; and 50 FR 45106, October 30, 
1985).


In 1986, Congress, as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (PL 99-
570) (the 1986 amendments), amended Sec.  412 of the act to address 
concerns that had been expressed by Congress and consumers about the 
1980 act and its implementation related to the

[[Page 64207]]

sufficiency of quality control testing, CGMP, recordkeeping, and recall 
requirements. The 1986 amendments: (1) state that an infant formula is 
deemed to be adulterated if it fails to provide certain required 
nutrients, fails to meet quality factor requirements established by the 
Secretary (and, by delegation, FDA), or if it is not processed in 
compliance with the CGMP and quality control procedures established by 
the Secretary; (2) require that the Secretary issue regulations 
establishing requirements for quality factors and CGMP, including 
quality control procedures; (3) require that infant formula 
manufacturers regularly audit their operations to ensure that those 
operations comply with CGMP and quality control procedure regulations; 
(4) expand the circumstances in which firms must make a submission to 
the agency to include when there is a major change in an infant formula 
or a change that may affect whether the formula is adulterated; (5) 
specify the nutrient quality control testing that must be done on each 
batch of infant formula; (6) modify the infant formula recall 
requirements; and (7) give the Secretary authority to establish 
requirements for retention of records, including records necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with CGMP and quality control procedures. In 
1989, the agency implemented the provisions on recalls (sections 412(f) 
and (g) of the act) by establishing subpart E in 21 CFR part 107 (54 FR 
4006, January 27, 1989). In 1991, the agency implemented the provisions 
on record and record retention requirements by revising 21 CFR 106.100 
(56 FR 66566, December 24, 1991).


The agency has already promulgated regulations that respond to a number 
of the provisions of the 1986 amendments. The final rule would address 
additional provisions of these amendments.


Alternatives:


The 1986 amendments require the Secretary (and, by delegation, FDA) to 
establish, by regulation, requirements for quality factors and CGMPs, 
including quality control procedures. Therefore, there are no 
alternatives to rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA estimates that the costs from the final rule to producers of infant 
formula would include first year and recurring costs (e.g., 
administrative costs, implementation of quality controls, records, 
audit plans and assurances of quality factors in new infant formulas). 
FDA anticipates that the primary benefits would be a reduced risk of 
illness due to Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella spp in infant 
formula. Additional benefits stem from the quality factors requirements 
that would assure the healthy growth of infants consuming infant 
formula. Monetized estimates of costs and benefits for this final rule 
are not available at this time. The analysis for the proposed rule 
estimated costs of less than $1 million per year. FDA was not able to 
quantify benefits in the analysis for the proposed rule.


Risks:


Special controls for infant formula manufacturing are especially 
important because infant formula, particularly powdered infant formula, 
is an ideal medium for bacterial growth and because infants are at high 
risk of foodborne illness because of their immature immune systems. In 
addition, quality factors are of critical need to assure that the 
infant formula supports healthy growth in the first months of life when 
infant formula may be an infant's sole source of nutrition. The 
provisions of this rule will address weaknesses in production that may 
allow contamination of infant formula, including, contamination with C. 
sakazakii and Salmonella spp which can lead to serious illness with 
devastating sequelae and/or death. The provisions would also assure 
that new infant formulas support healthy growth in infants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/09/96                    61 FR 36154
NPRM Comment Period End         12/06/96
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    04/28/03                    68 FR 22341
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    06/27/03                    68 FR 38247
NPRM Comment Period End         08/26/03
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    08/01/06                    71 FR 43392
NPRM Comment Period End         09/15/06
Final Action                    10/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Benson Silverman
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850)
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1459
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Split from 0910-AA04
RIN: 0910-AF27
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



49. 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 
postmarket medical device reporting regulations to require that 
manufacturers, importers, and user facilities submit mandatory reports 
of medical device adverse events to the Agency in an electronic format 
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 final rule would require user facilities and medical device 
manufacturers and importers to submit medical device adverse event 
reports in electronic format 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.

[[Page 64208]]

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 in electronic format instead of using a hard copy form.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the medical 
device reporting requirements and not requiring submission of this 
information in electronic format. 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 Cost and Benefits:


The principal benefit would be to public health because the increased 
speed in the processing and analysis of the more than 200,000 medical 
device reports currently submitted annually on 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 $8.5 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                            08/21/09                    74 FR 42310
NPRM Comment Period End         11/19/09
Final Action                    09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
WO-66 Room 4436
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 796-5739
Fax: 301 847-8144
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF86
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA



50.  REGULATIONS RESTRICTING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF 
CIGARETTES AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 301 et seq., The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; PL 111-
31, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, March 22, 2010, Public Law 111-30 sections 6(c)(1) 
and 102(a)(1).


Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Sec. Sec.  6(c)(1) 
and 102(a)(1) require publication of this final rule within 270 days of 
enactment.


Abstract:


This rule establishes regulations restricting the sale and distribution 
of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents, 
implementing section 102 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act (FSPTCA). FSPTCA sections 102 and 6(c)(1) require the 
Secretary to publish, within 270 days of enactment, a final rule 
regarding cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. This final rule must be 
identical, except for several changes identified in section 102(a)(2) 
of FSPTCA, to part 897 of the regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
of HHS in the August 28, 1996 issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 
44396).


This final rule prohibits the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco 
to individuals under the age of 18 and requires manufacturers, 
distributors, and retailers to comply with certain conditions regarding 
access to, and promotion of, these products. Among other things, the 
final rule requires retailers to verify a purchaser's age by 
photographic identification. It also prohibits, with limited exception, 
free samples and prohibits the sale of these products through vending 
machines and self-service displays except in facilities where 
individuals under the age of 18 are not present or permitted at any 
time. The rule also limits the advertising and labeling to which 
children and adolescents are exposed. The rule accomplishes this by 
generally restricting advertising to which children and adolescents are 
exposed to a black-and-white, text-only format. The rule also prohibits 
the sale or distribution of brand-identified promotional, non-tobacco 
items such as hats and tee shirts. Furthermore, the rule prohibits 
sponsorship of sporting and other events, teams, and entries in a brand 
name of a tobacco product, but permits such sponsorship in a corporate 
name.


Statement of Need:


FDA is issuing this regulation as required in section 102 of FSPTCA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal authority to issue this regulation includes section 102 of 
FSPTCA.


Alternatives:


FDA's statutory requirement to issue this rule, in its current form, 
does not provide for the consideration of any alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Congress has recognized that tobacco use is the foremost preventable 
cause of premature death in America. It causes over 400,000 deaths in 
the United States each year, and approximately 8,600,000 Americans have 
chronic illnesses related to smoking.


Based on FDA's prior analysis of a similar rule, implementing nearly

[[Page 64209]]

identical provisions (61 FR 44396), the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) believes this rulemaking will have a significant economic impact.


Costs associated with this rulemaking will include one-time costs to 
manufacturers to remove prohibited point-of-sale promotional items and 
self-service displays. Most costs to retail establishments are 
attributable to the new labor costs associated with the self-service 
restrictions, costs for training employees to verify customer ages, for 
routinely checking I.D.'s of young purchasers. There are also costs 
seen by consumers in delay in checkout lines. Distributional and 
transitional costs are also expected.


Risks:


Congress has found that these regulations will directly and materially 
advance the Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the 
number of children and adolescents who use cigarettes and smokeless 
tobacco and in preventing the life-threatening health consequences 
associated with tobacco use. An overwhelming majority of Americans who 
use tobacco products begin using such products while they are minors 
and become addicted to the nicotine in those products before reaching 
the age of 18. Tobacco advertising and promotion play a crucial role in 
the decision of these minors to begin using tobacco products. Less 
restrictive and less comprehensive approaches have not and will not be 
effective in reducing the problems addressed by such regulations. The 
reasonable restrictions on the advertising and promotion of tobacco 
products contained in such regulations will lead to a significant 
decrease in the number of minors using and becoming addicted to those 
products.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Rule                      03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
Philip R. Desjardins
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
WO66, Room 5449
10903 New Hampshire
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 796-5683
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG33
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




51.  ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD (EHR) INCENTIVE PROGRAM (CMS-
0033-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 111-5 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title IV 
of Division B, Medicare and Medicaid Health Information Technology)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, October 1, 2010, Date can start incentive payments to 
hospitals (Medicare).


Other, Statutory, January 1, 2011, Date can start incentive payments to 
eligible professionals (Medicare).


Establishes policies and procedures required before the incentive 
program can begin. Additionally supplemental payments are available in 
2011 and 2012. If eligible professionals and hospitals are not 
meaningful Electronic Health Record users by 2015 there will be a 
Medicare payment adjustment imposed.


Abstract:


The Medicare and Medicaid Health IT provisions in the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 promote the adoption and meaningful use of 
certified electronic health records (EHRs). The Recovery Act authorized 
incentive payments for eligible professionals (EPS) and hospitals 
participating in Medicare and Medicaid for becoming meaningful users of 
certified EHRs. The law established maximum annual incentive amounts 
and includes Medicare penalties for failing to meaningfully use EHRs 
beginning in 2015 for professionals and hospitals that fail to adopt 
certified EHRs.


Statement of Need:


This rule would implement provisions of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) that authorizes incentive 
payments to EPS and eligible hospitals participating in the Medicare 
and Medicaid programs for adopting and becoming meaningful users of 
certified EHR technology.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title IV of Division B of the Recovery Act includes provisions to 
promote the adoption of interoperable health information technology 
(HIT) to promote the meaningful use of health information technology to 
improve the quality and value of American health care. These provisions 
together with Title XIII of Division A of the Recovery Act may be cited 
as the ``Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health 
Act'' or the ``HITECH Act''. CMS is charged with developing the 
incentive programs outlined in Division B, Title IV of the HITECH Act.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives; this is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under Medicare, payment adjustments will be made starting in 2015 if 
EPs and eligible hospitals are not meaningful users of certified EHR 
technology. The benefits of the adoption of HIT are difficult to 
quantify. There is the potential of reduced medical costs through 
efficiency improvements. Additionally, HIT could help prevent medical 
errors and adverse drug interactions.


Risks:


If this rule is not published, CMS will be unable to pay incentives for 
the adoption and meaningful use of EHRs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64210]]

Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Elizabeth S. Holland
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop S2-26-17
7500 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-1309
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 0991-AB58
RIN: 0938-AP78
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



52.  REVISIONS TO PAYMENT POLICIES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE 
SCHEDULE AND PART B FOR CY 2011 (CMS-1503-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, 2010.


Abstract:


This major proposed rule would revise payment polices under the 
physician fee schedule, as well, as other policy changes to payment 
under Part B for CY 2011. (The statute requires the proposed and 
subsequent final rule publish by 11/1/10.)


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.


The final rule has a statutory publication date of November 1, 2010, an 
implementation date of January 1, 2011.


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 Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2011.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Cassandra Black
Director, Division of Practitoner Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C4-01-26
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4545
Email: [email protected] gov
RIN: 0938-AP79
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



53.  PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL INPATIENT PROSPECTIVE 
PAYMENT SYSTEMS FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS AND FY 2011 RATES AND TO THE 
LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL PPS AND RY 2011 RATES (CMS-1498-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Sec 1886(d) of the Social Security Act


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2010.


Final, Statutory, August 1, 2010.


Abstract:


Proposed Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems 
for Acute Care Hospitals and FY 2011 Rates and to the Long Term Care 
Hospital PPS and RY 2011 Rates


Statement of Need:


CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective 
payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs to 
implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these 
systems. In addition, we describe the proposed changes to the amounts 
and factors used to determine the rates for Medicare hospital inpatient 
services for operating costs and capital-related costs. Also, CMS 
annually updates the payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment 
system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care 
hospitals (LTCHs). The proposed rule solicits comments on the proposed 
IPPS and LTCH payment rates and new policies. CMS will issue a final 
rule containing the payment rates for the 2011 IPPS and LTCHs at least 
60 days before October 1, 2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Social Security Act (the Act) sets forth a system of payment for 
the operating costs of acute care hospital inpatient stays under 
Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) based on prospectively set rates. 
The Act requires the Secretary to pay for the capital-related costs of 
hospital inpatient and Long Term Care stays under a prospective payment 
system (PPS). Under these PPSs, Medicare payment for hospital inpatient 
and Long Term Care operating and capital-related costs is made at 
predetermined, specific rates for each hospital discharge. These 
changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after October 
1, 2010.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for FY 2011.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient hospital and LTCH

[[Page 64211]]

services will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2010


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10

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:
Tiffany Swygert
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop C4-25-11
7500 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4642
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AP80
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS



54.  CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
SYSTEM AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR CY 2011 (CMS-
1504-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Sec 1833 of the Social Security Act


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 410 to 413; 42 CFR 416


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2010.


Abstract:


This major proposed rule would revise the Medicare hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system to implement applicable statutory 
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with 
this system. 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. (The proposed and subsequent final rule must publish by 11/1/
10.)


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 classification groups (APCs). CMS annually revises 
the APC payment amounts based on claims data, proposes new payment 
polices, and updates the payments for inflation using the hospital 
operating market basket. The proposed rule solicits comments on the 
proposed OPPS payment rates and new policies. This rule does not impact 
payments to critical access hospitals as they are not paid under the 
OPPS. Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) 
under the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under 
the ASC payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for 
inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-
U). CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for the 
2011 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 
2011.


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. 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 as well as changes to the rates and services paid under 
the ASC payment system. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after January 1, 2011.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2011.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient hospital and ASC 
services will not be paid appropriately beginning January 1, 2011.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Alberta Dwived
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C5-01-26
7500 Security Blvd,
Baltimore,, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-0763
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AP82
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--CMS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




55. HIPAA MENTAL HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2008 
AMENDMENTS (CMS-4140-IFC)

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Mental Health Parity and Addication Equity Act of 2008 (P.L.110-343)


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 146.136

[[Page 64212]]

Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 3, 2009, Interim final regulation.


Abstract:


This rule implements statutory changes to the Public Health Services 
Act (PHSA) affecting the group health insurance markets and non-federal 
governmental plans, made by the Mental Health Parity and Addiction 
Equity Act of 2008.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to implement MHPAEA, which expands the existing 
Mental Health parity law to include substance abuse disorders and to 
require parity for mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits 
in treatment limitations and financial requirements.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Public Health Service Act and MHPAEA provide the authority to 
implement this rule.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Promulgation of this rule will provide greater access to mental health 
and substance abuse disorder treatments by requiring group health plans 
to provide better coverage for those treatments.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of individuals not being able to obtain 
necessary mental health and/or substance abuse disorder treatment 
because of limited health coverage for those treatments. By increasing 
access to treatment for mental health conditions and substance abuse 
disorders, this rule will also reduce the stigma experienced by 
millions of Americans who are afflicted with these conditions and allow 
them to remain in the workforce.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         04/28/09                    74 FR 19155
RFI Comment Period End          05/28/09
Interim Final Rule              01/00/10
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jim Mayhew
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-9244
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1210-AB30, Related to 1545-BI70
RIN: 0938-AP65
BILLING CODE 4150-24-S

[[Page 64213]]




DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003 pursuant 
to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. DHS has a vital 
mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This 
requires the dedication of more than 225,000 employees in jobs that 
range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from 
cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are 
wide-ranging, but our goal is clear -- keeping America safe.
Our mission gives us five main areas of responsibility:
1. Guarding against Terrorism,
2. Securing our Borders,
3. Enforcing our Immigration Laws,
4. Improving our Readiness for, Response to and Recovery from 
            Disasters, and
5. Maturing and Unifying the Department.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
government agencies -- at the State, local, tribal, Federal and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure. And we 
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every 
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further 
discussion of our five main areas of responsibility, see the DHS 
website at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/responsibilities.shtm.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's Fall 2009 
Regulatory Plan and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's five 
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the 
Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
The regulations we have identified in the this year's Fall Regulatory 
Plan continue to address recent legislative initiatives including, but 
not limited to, the following acts: the Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Pub. L. 110-53 (Aug. 3, 
2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA), Pub. L. 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Pub. L. No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 
Pub. L. 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 
110-329 (Sept. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and 
unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of 
the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 
including the Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. In 
addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory 
project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the 
Department's mission.
DHS 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. DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive 
Order 12,866, as amended, such as promulgating regulations that are 
cost-effective and maximizing the net benefits of regulations. 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 a better 
understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the 
Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations from the 
Department's major offices and directorates such as the National 
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In addition, it includes 
regulations from DHS components -- including U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) -- that have active 
regulatory programs. Below is a discussion of the Fall 2009 Regulatory 
Plan for DHS offices and directorates as well as DHS regulatory 
components.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers 
immigration services and benefits through the rule of law while 
ensuring that no one is admitted to the United States who is a threat 
to public safety or national security. As a nation of immigrants, the 
United States has a strong commitment to welcoming those individuals 
who seek legal entry through our immigration system, and to also assist 
those in need of humanitarian protection against harm. USCIS seeks to 
welcome lawful immigrants while preventing exploitation of the 
immigration system and to create and maintain a high-performing, 
integrated, public service organization.
Based on a comprehensive review of the USCIS planned regulatory agenda, 
USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to directly support these 
commitments and goals.
Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
During 2009, USCIS issued a series of regulations to implement the 
transition of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern 
Mariana Islands (CNMI) as required under title VII of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008. USCIS will be issuing the following CNMI 
final rules during Fiscal Year 2010: ``CNMI Transitional Worker 
Classification,'' E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens of the CNMI with 
Long-Term Investor Status, and the joint USCIS/Department of Justice 
regulation ``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.''
Improvements to the Immigration System
USCIS strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate, and responsive 
services to those who seek and qualify to come to our country, as well 
as to provide seamless, transparent, and dedicated customer support 
services. To improve our customer service goals, USCIS is pursuing a 
regulatory initiative that will provide for visa number lottery 
selection of H-1B petitions based on electronic registration.
Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to 
Numerical Limitations. USCIS is considering proposing a revised 
registration process for cap-subject H-1B petitioners. The rule would 
propose to create a process by which USCIS would randomly select a 
sufficient number of

[[Page 64214]]

timely filed registrations to meet the applicable cap. Only those 
petitioners whose registrations are randomly selected would be eligible 
to file an H-1B petition for a cap-subject prospective worker. 
Enhancing customer service, the rule would eliminate the need for 
petitioning employers to prepare and file complete H-1B petitions 
before knowing whether a prospective worker has ``won'' the H-1B 
lottery. The rule would also reduce the burden on USCIS of entering 
data and subsequently returning non-selected petitions to employers 
once the cap is reached.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
USCIS offers protection to individuals who face persecution by 
adjudicating applications for refugees and asylees. Other humanitarian 
benefits are available to individuals who have been victims of severe 
forms of trafficking or criminal activity.
Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory effort to 
amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments 
are expected to focus on portions of the regulations that deal with 
determinations of whether persecution is inflicted on account of a 
protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of 
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a 
particular social group. This effort should provide greater stability 
and clarity in this important area of the law.
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory 
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking), U 
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and Adjustment of Status 
for T and U status holders. By promulgating additional regulations 
related to these victims of specified crimes or severe forms of 
trafficking in persons, USCIS hopes to provide greater stability for 
these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the community. These 
rulemakings will contain provisions that seek to ease documentary 
requirements for this vulnerable population and provisions that provide 
clarification to the law enforcement community. As well, publication of 
these rules will inform the community on how their petitions are 
adjudicated.
United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, 
maritime service of the United States and the only military 
organization within DHS. It is the principal federal agency responsible 
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value 
to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and 
capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated 
approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's 
policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering 
results through a network of enduring partnerships. The Coast Guard's 
ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is 
the U.S. Government's most significant and important strength in the 
maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the new millennium. The Coast Guard creates 
value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. 
Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime 
presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime 
safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard 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 goals 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 fulfills 
its three broad roles and responsibilities - maritime safety, maritime 
security, and maritime stewardship.
The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified 
Agenda, and the two rules appearing in the Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan 
below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and 
reflect our regulatory policies. The Coast Guard has issued many rules 
supporting maritime safety, security and environmental protection as 
indicated by the wide range of topics covered in its rulemaking 
projects in this Unified Agenda.
Inspection of Towing Vessels. In 2004, Congress amended U.S. law by 
adding towing vessels to the types of commercial vessels that must be 
inspected by the Coast Guard. Congress also provided guidance relevant 
to the use of a safety management system as part of the inspection 
regime. The intent of the proposed rule is to promote safer work 
practices and reduce casualties on towing vessels by ensuring that 
towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety standards and safety 
management systems. The proposed rule was developed in cooperation with 
the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). It would establish 
a new subchapter dedicated to towing vessels and covering vessel 
equipment, systems, operational standards, and inspection requirements. 
To implement this change, the Coast Guard is developing regulations to 
prescribe standards, procedures, tests, and inspections for towing 
vessels. This rulemaking supports maritime safety and maritime 
stewardship.
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in 
U.S. Waters. This rule would set performance standards for the quality 
of ballast water discharged in U.S. waters and require that all vessels 
that operate in U.S. waters, are bound for ports or places in the U.S., 
and are equipped with ballast tanks, install and operate a Coast Guard 
approved Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) before discharging 
ballast water into U.S. waters. This would include vessels bound for 
offshore ports or places. As the effectiveness of ballast water 
exchange varies from vessel to vessel, the Coast Guard believes that 
setting performance standards would be the most effective way for 
approving BWMS that are environmentally protective and scientifically 
sound. Ultimately, the approval of BWMS would require procedures 
similar to those located in title 46, subchapter Q, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, to ensure that the BWMS works not only in the 
laboratory but under shipboard conditions. These would include: pre-
approval requirements, application requirements, land-based/shipboard 
testing requirements, design and construction requirements, electrical 
requirements, engineering requirements, and piping requirements. This 
requirement is intended to meet the directive from the National 
Invasive Species Act (NISA) requiring the Coast Guard to ensure to the 
maximum extent practicable that nonindigenous species (NIS) are not 
discharged into U.S. waters. This rulemaking supports maritime 
stewardship. As well, this rulemaking provides additional benefits. 
Ballast water discharged from ships is a

[[Page 64215]]

significant pathway for the introduction and spread of non-indigenous 
aquatic nuisance species. These organisms, which may be plants, 
animals, bacteria or pathogens, have the potential to displace native 
species, degrade native habitats, spread disease and disrupt human 
economic and social activities that depend on water resources.
The Coast Guard has supported the e-rulemaking initiative and, starting 
on the day of the first Federal Register publication in a rulemaking 
project, the public can submit comments electronically and view agency 
documents and public comments on the Federal Register's Document 
Management System, which is available online at http://
www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.htmlhome. The Coast Guard 
endeavors to reduce the paperwork burden it places on the public and 
strives to issue only necessary regulations that are tailored to impose 
the least burden on society.
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. 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.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the 
processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without 
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 
security, CBP published several final and proposed rules during the 
last fiscal year and intends to propose and finalize others during the 
next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders 
and ports of entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
Electronic System for Travel Authorization. On June 9, 2008, CBP 
published an interim final rule amending DHS regulations to implement 
the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who 
wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at 
air or sea ports of entry. This rule is intended to fulfill the 
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule establishes ESTA and 
delineates the data fields DHS has determined will be collected by the 
system. The rule requires that each alien traveling to the United 
States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via 
the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the 
required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to CBP 
biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W 
Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). By Federal Register 
notice dated November 13, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
informed the public that ESTA would become mandatory beginning January 
12, 2009. This means that all VWP travelers must either obtain travel 
authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to 
traveling to the United States.
By shifting from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data 
in advance of travel, CBP will be able to determine before the alien 
departs for the U.S., the eligibility of nationals from VWP countries 
to travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. By modernizing the VWP, the 
ESTA is intended to increase national security and provide for greater 
efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing 
for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before boarding, 
thereby reducing traveler delays based on lengthy processes at ports of 
entry. CBP intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 
calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic 
transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk 
targeting. See Pub. L. No. 109-347, Sec.  203 (Oct. 13, 2006). This 
includes appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined 
for the United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on 
vessels at foreign seaports. Id. The SAFE Port Act requires that the 
information collected reasonably improve CBP's ability to identify 
high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and 
security. Id.
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule ``Importer 
Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,'' amending 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. This rule, which became effective on 
January 26, 2009, improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities, facilitates the prompt release of legitimate cargo 
following its arrival in the United States, and assists CBP in 
increasing the security of the global trading system. The comment 
period for the interim final rule concluded on June 1, 2009. CBP is 
analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of certain 
flexibilities provided in the interim final rule. CBP intends to 
publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published an 
interim final rule in November 2008 amending the DHS Regulations to 
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the Natural Resources 
Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration laws of the United 
States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 
among other things, provides for a visa waiver program for travel to 
Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set forth the requirements 
for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure 
and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI

[[Page 64216]]

without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in the 
CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program.
Global Entry Program. Pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, in the fall of 
2009, CBP issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to 
establish an international trusted traveler program, called Global 
Entry. This voluntary program would allow CBP to expedite clearance of 
pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United States. CBP has 
been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several airports 
since June 6, 2008. Based on the successful operation of the pilot, CBP 
now proposes to establish Global Entry as a permanent voluntary 
regulatory program. CBP will evaluate the public comments received in 
response to the NPRM, in order to develop a final rule.
The rules discussed above foster DHS's mission. Under section 403(1) of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 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 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 2010, 
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate 
legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory 
Plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to 
ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve 
our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover 
from, and mitigate all hazards. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA will continue 
to serve that mission and promote the Department of Homeland Security's 
goals. In furtherance of the Department and agency's goals, in the 
upcoming fiscal year, FEMA will be working on regulations to implement 
provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA) (Public Law 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006), the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28, May 25, 2007), and to 
implement lessons learned from past events.
Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households. 
FEMA intends to update the current interim rule titled ``Disaster 
Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households.'' This 
rulemaking would implement section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) (42 
U.S.C. 5121-5207). It would also make further revisions to 44 CFR part 
206, subparts D (the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)) and 
remove subpart E (Individual and Family Grant Programs). Among other 
things, it would implement section 686 of PKEMRA to remove the IHP 
subcaps; implement section 685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent 
housing construction eligibility; revise FEMA's regulations related to 
individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA section 689; 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. This regulation also would propose to 
implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance to relocate 
individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residence, to and 
from alternate locations for short-or long-term accommodations.
Public Assistance Program regulations. FEMA will also work to revise 
the Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect 
changes made to the Stafford Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and 
Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Public Law 109-308, 
Oct., 2006), the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
218, Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port 
Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Public Law 109-347, Oct. 13, 2006), and to 
make other substantive and nonsubstantive clarifications and 
corrections to the Public Assistance regulations. The proposed changes 
would expand eligibility to include performing arts facilities and 
community arts centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include 
education in the list of critical services pursuant to section 689h of 
PKEMRA, thus allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be 
eligible for restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to 
available assistance and precautionary evacuations to activities 
eligible for reimbursement pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA; include 
household pets and service animals in essential assistance pursuant to 
section 689 of PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act; provide for 
expedited payments of grant assistance for the removal of debris 
pursuant to section 610 of the SAFE Port Act; and allow for a contract 
to be set aside for award based on a specific geographic area pursuant 
to section 2 of the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes 
would include adding or changing requirements to improve and streamline 
the Public Assistance grant application process.
Special Community Disaster Loans. In addition, FEMA intends to address 
public comments and publish a final rule that would implement loan 
cancellation provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (SCDLs). 
FEMA provided SCDLs to local governments in the Gulf region following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not result in the 
automatic cancellation of all SCDLs. It would finalize the procedures 
and requirements for governments who received SCDLs to apply for 
cancellation of loan obligations as authorized by section 4502 of the 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The final rule would establish 
the procedures by which loan holders would provide FEMA with 
information that would then be used to determine when cancelation of a 
SCDL, in whole or in part, is warranted. The final rule would not apply 
to any loans made under FEMA's traditional Community Disaster Loans 
Program which is governed under separate regulations.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any 
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to 
protect national security by enforcing our nation's customs and 
immigration laws. During fiscal year 2010, ICE will

[[Page 64217]]

pursue rulemaking actions that improve three critical subject areas: 
the processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP); the 
detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal; and the 
electronic signature and storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility 
Verification.
Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. ICE will 
improve SEVP processes by publishing the Optional Practical Training 
(OPT) final rule, which will respond to comments on the OPT interim 
final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12 
months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have completed a 
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and who 
accept employment with employers who participate in the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify employment verification 
program.
In addition, ICE will publish proposed revisions of 8 CFR 214.1-4 in a 
regulation that will clarify the criteria for F, M and J nonimmigrant 
status and for schools certified by SEVP, update policy and procedure 
for SEVP, remove obsolete provisions, and support the implementation of 
a major reprogramming of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 
System (SEVIS), known as ``SEVIS II.''
Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal. ICE will also 
improve the post order custody review process in the final rule related 
to the Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 
in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 
U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005). ICE will also 
make conforming changes as required by the Homeland Security Act of 
2002.
Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility 
Verification. A final rule on the Electronic Signature and Storage of 
Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification will respond to comments 
and make minor changes to the IFR that was published in 2006.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
The goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is 
to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk 
requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and 
virtual threats and their associated human elements.
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, section 563 of the Fiscal 
Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-
161, amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with the 
authority to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 
ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the misappropriation or use 
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act directs DHS to promulgate 
regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate 
to register with DHS. As part of the registration process, the statute 
directs DHS to screen registration applicants against the Federal 
Government's Terrorist Screening Database. The statute also requires 
sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the identities of those seeking 
to purchase it; to record certain information about each sale or 
transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of 
ammonium nitrate to DHS.
The rule would aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent the 
misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. By 
preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists' 
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical 
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of 
ammonium nitrate, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain 
ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
DHS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for the 
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program on October 29, 2008, and 
has received a number of public comments on that ANPRM. DHS is 
presently reviewing those comments and is in the process of developing 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which the Department hopes to 
issue in Spring 2010.
US-VISIT
The U.S. 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 verifies 
aliens' travel documents by comparison of biometric identifiers. The 
goals of US-VISIT are to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and 
visitors to the United States, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, 
ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, and protect the 
privacy of visitors to the United States.
The US-VISIT program, through CBP officers or Department of State (DOS) 
consular offices, collects biometrics (digital fingerprints and 
photographs) from aliens seeking to enter the United States. DHS checks 
that information against government databases to identify suspected 
terrorists, known criminals, or individuals who have previously 
violated U.S. immigration laws. This system assists DHS and DOS in 
determining whether an alien seeking to enter the United States is, in 
fact, admissible to the United States under existing law. No biometric 
exit system currently exists, however, to assist DHS or DOS in 
determining whether an alien has overstayed the terms of his or her 
visa or other authorization to be present in the United States.
NPPD published an NPRM on April 24, 2008, proposing to establish an 
exit program at all air and sea ports of departure in the United 
States. Congress subsequently enacted the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public 
Law 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3669 - 70 (Sept. 30, 2008), requiring DHS 
to delay issuance of a final rule until the conclusion of pilot tests 
to analyze the collection of biometrics from at least two air exit 
scenarios. DHS currently is reviewing the results of those tests. DHS 
continues to work to ensure that the final air/sea exit rule will be 
issued during fiscal year 2010.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 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 2010, TSA will promote the DHS mission by emphasizing 
regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, detect, and 
protect against threats against various modes of the transportation 
system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling 
public, transportation workers, and cargo.
Screening of Air Cargo. TSA will finalize an interim final rule that 
codifies a statutory requirement of Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act)

[[Page 64218]]

that TSA establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported 
on passenger aircraft by August 3, 2010. TSA is working to finalize the 
interim rule by November 2010. To assist in carrying out this mandate, 
TSA is establishing a voluntary program under which it will certify 
cargo screening facilities to screen cargo according to TSA standards 
prior to its being tendered to aircraft operators for carriage on 
passenger aircraft.
Large Aircraft Security Program (General Aviation). TSA plans to issue 
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose 
amendments to 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 General 
Aviation (GA) aircraft operators. 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 GA aircraft are more vulnerable and may 
view them as attractive targets. This rule would yield benefits in the 
areas of security and quality governance by expanding the mandatory use 
of security measures to certain operators of large aircraft that are 
not currently required to have a security plan. TSA published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking on October 30, 2008, and received over 7,000 
public comments, generally urging significant changes to the proposal. 
The SNPRM will respond to the comments and contain proposals on 
addressing security in the GA sector.
Security Training for Non-Aviation Modes. TSA will propose regulations 
to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 
transportation, in accordance with the requirements of the 9/11 Act. In 
particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring freight railroads, 
passenger railroads, public transportation system operators, over-the-
road bus operators, and motor carriers transporting certain hazardous 
materials to conduct security training for certain of their employees. 
Requiring security training programs of these employees is important, 
because it will prepare these employees, including frontline employees, 
for potential security threats and conditions.
Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will propose regulations to 
require repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement 
standard security programs and to comply with security directives 
issued by TSA. The rule will also propose to codify the scope of TSA's 
existing inspection program and to require regulated parties to allow 
DHS officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, and 
records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action implements 
section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. TSA is developing 
a proposed rule to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication 
criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of 
individuals for which TSA is responsible. The scope of the rulemaking 
will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation 
who are required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs. In 
addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and 
credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in 
processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying 
language and removing redundancies. Standardized procedures and 
adjudication criteria will allow TSA to reduce the need for certain 
individuals to undergo multiple STAs; streamlined processes are 
intended to reduce the time needed for TSA to complete the adjudication 
of STAs.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2010
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
DHS's Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




56. SECURE HANDLING OF AMMONIUM NITRATE PROGRAM

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Sec 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J--Secure 
Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161


CFR Citation:


6 CFR 31


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.


Abstract:


This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 amendment to the 
Homeland Security Act entitled the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate. 
The amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium 
nitrate facility . . .to prevent the misappropriation or use of 
ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''


Statement of Need:


Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, P.L. 110-161, the 
Department of Homeland Security is required to promulgate a rulemaking 
to create a registration regime for certain buyers and sellers of 
ammonium nitrate. The rule, as proposed by this NPRM, would create that 
regime, and will aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent 
the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. 
By preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists' 
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical 
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of 
ammonium nitrate, it will be much more difficult for terrorists to 
obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive 
devices (IEDs). As a result, there is a direct value in the deterrence 
of a catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium nitrate such as the 
Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160, injured 853 people, and is 
estimated to have caused $652 million in damages ($921 million in 
$2009).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J -- 
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161, authorizes and 
requires this rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Department of Homeland Security is required by statute to publish 
regulations implementing the Secure

[[Page 64219]]

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act. As part of its notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Department will seek public comment on the numerous 
alternative ways in which the final Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate 
Program could carry out the requirements of the Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There will be costs to ammonium nitrate (AN) purchasers, including 
farms, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, golf 
courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, retail 
garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. There will also be costs to 
AN sellers, such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive 
manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, 
retail garden center, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator 
services, and lab supply wholesalers. Costs will relate to the point of 
sale requirements, registration activities, recordkeeping, inspections/
audits, and reporting of theft or loss. DHS plans to provide an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which covers the populations and cost 
impacts on small business.


Because the value of the benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist 
attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value 
of the consequence, it is difficult to identify the particular risk 
reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. When the 
proposed rule is published, DHS will provide a break even analysis. The 
program elements that would help achieve the risk reductions will be 
discussed in the break even analysis. These elements and related 
qualitative benefits include point of sale identification requirements 
and requiring individuals to be screened against the TSDB resulting in 
known bad actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate.


Risks:


Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in terrorist 
attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically and 
internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma 
City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated firsthand to 
America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by terrorists. In 
addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional Irish 
Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, England 
bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium nitrate 
was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in November 2003 
bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the events of 9/11, 
stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during raids on 
terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, England, 
India, and the Philippines.


The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United 
States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use of 
ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this rulemaking will support the 
Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the 
Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is 
complementary to other Department programs seeking to reduce the risks 
posed by terrorism, including the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism 
Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from 
gaining access to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent 
terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure), 
among other programs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           10/29/08                    73 FR 64280
Correction                      11/05/08                    73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/29/08
NPRM                            04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


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


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dennis Deziel
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 703 235-5263
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1601-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--OS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




57. COLLECTION OF ALIEN BIOMETRIC DATA UPON EXIT FROM THE UNITED STATES 
AT AIR AND SEA PORTS OF DEPARTURE; UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT 
STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (US-VISIT)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


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; 8 CFR 231.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT) in 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. This 
rule requires aliens to provide biometric identifiers at entry and upon 
departure at any air and sea port of entry at which facilities exist to 
collect such information.


Statement of Need:


This rule establishes an exit system at all air and sea ports of 
departure in the United States. This rule requires 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.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule would require aliens who are subject to US-VISIT 
biometric requirements upon entering the United

[[Page 64220]]

States to provide biometric information before departing from the 
United States at air and sea ports of entry. The rule proposed a 
performance standard for commercial air and vessel carriers to collect 
the biometric information and to submit this information to DHS no 
later than 24 hours after air carrier staff secure the aircraft doors 
on an international departure, or for sea travel, no later than 24 
hours after the vessel's departure from a U.S. port. DHS is considering 
numerous alternatives based upon public comment on the alternatives in 
the NPRM. Alternatives included various points in the process, kiosks, 
and varying levels of responsibility for the carriers and government. 
DHS may select another variation between the outer bounds of the 
alternatives presented or another alternative if subsequent analysis 
warrants.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule expenditure and delay costs for a ten-year period are 
estimated at $3.5 billion. Alternative costs range from $3.1 billion to 
$6.4 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of economic impacts 
other than direct expenditures. Of these two are economic costs: social 
costs resulting from increased traveler queue and processing time; and 
social costs resulting from increased flight delays. Ten-year benefits 
are estimated at $1.1 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of 
economic impacts other than direct expenditures. Of these five are 
benefits, which include costs that could be avoided, for each 
alternative: cost avoidance resulting from improved detection of aliens 
overstaying visas; cost avoidance resulting from improved U.S. 
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efficiency attempting 
apprehension of overstays; cost avoidance resulting from improved 
efficiency processing Exit/Entry data; improved compliance with NSEERS 
requirements due to the improvement in ease of compliance; and improved 
National Security Environment. These benefits are measured 
quantitatively or qualitatively.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/24/08                    73 FR 22065
NPRM Comment Period End         06/23/08
Final Rule                      07/00/10

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:
Helen DeThomas
Management and Program Analyst
Department of Homeland Security
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 202 298-5173
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




58. ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING DEFINITIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1252; 8 USC 1282; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 208


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security regulations 
that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments focus on portions of the 
regulations that deal with the definitions of membership in a 
particular social group, the requirements for failure of State 
protection, and determinations about whether persecution is inflicted 
on account of a protected ground. This rule codifies long-standing 
concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a basis 
for membership in a particular social group. It also clarifies that a 
person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under certain 
circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the Board of 
Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in 1999, Matter 
of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that the governing 
regulatory standards required clarification. The Department of Justice 
began this regulatory initiative by publishing a proposed rule 
addressing these issues in 2000.


Statement of Need:


This rule provides guidance on a number of key interpretive issues of 
the refugee definition used by adjudicators deciding asylum and 
withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The interpretive issues 
include whether persecution is inflicted on account of a protected 
ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of State 
protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a particular 
social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of claims made by 
applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of the protected 
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. One 
example of such claims which often fall within the particular social 
group ground concerns people who have suffered or fear domestic 
violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues raised in a 
proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have developed since 
the publication of the proposed rule. This should provide greater 
stability and clarity in this important area of the law.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The purpose of this rule is to provide guidance on certain issues that 
have arisen in the context of asylum and withholding adjudications. The 
1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 
Convention) contains the internationally accepted definition of a 
refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost identical 
definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of 
origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or 
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that 
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group, or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.


Alternatives:


A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed around the 
meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of this case law 
has addressed

[[Page 64221]]

more traditional asylum and withholding claims based on the protected 
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. In recent 
years, however, the United States increasingly has encountered asylum 
and withholding applications with more varied bases, related, for 
example, to an applicant's gender or sexual orientation. Many of these 
new types of claims are based on the ground of ``membership in a 
particular social group,'' which is the least well-defined of the five 
protected grounds within the refugee definition.


On December 7, 2000, a proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and 
``membership in a particular social group.'' Prior to publishing a 
final rule, the Department will be considering how the nexus between 
persecution and a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how 
membership in a particular social group might be defined and evaluated; 
and what constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect 
the applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. This 
rule will provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 
officers, Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration 
Appeals. The alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the 
standards governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal 
through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has 
resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards and the Department has 
therefore determined that promulgation of the final rule is necessary.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


By providing a clear framework for key asylum and withholding issues, 
we anticipate that adjudicators will have clear guidance, increasing 
administrative efficiency and consistency in adjudicating these cases. 
The rule will also promote a more consistent and predictable body of 
administrative and judicial precedent governing these types of cases. 
We anticipate that this will enable applicants to better assess their 
potential eligibility for asylum and to present their claims more 
efficiently when they believe that they may qualify, thus reducing the 
resources spent on adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In 
addition, a more consistent and predictable body of law on these issues 
will likely result in fewer appeals, both administrative and judicial, 
and reduce the associated litigation costs. The Department has no way 
of accurately predicting how this rule will impact the number of asylum 
applications filed in the US. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the 
reported experience of other nations that have adopted standards under 
which the results are similar to those we anticipate from this rule, we 
do not believe this rule will cause a large change in the number of 
asylum applications filed.


Risks:


The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents 
significant risks of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. 
The government's interests in fair, efficient and consistent 
adjudications would be compromised.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/07/00                    65 FR 76588
NPRM                            09/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2092-00


Transferred from RIN 1115-AF92


Agency Contact:
Jedidah Hussey
Deputy Chief, Asylum Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 3300
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1663
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



59. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES SUBJECT 
TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1184(g)


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its 
regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of alien workers 
subject to annual numerical limitations. This rule proposes an 
electronic registration program for petitions subject to numerical 
limitations contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 
Initially, the program would be for the H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification; however, other nonimmigrant classifications will be 
added as needed. This action is necessary because the demand for H-1B 
specialty occupation workers by U.S. companies generally exceeds the 
numerical limitation. This rule is intended to allow USCIS to more 
efficiently manage the intake and lottery process for these H-1B 
petitions.


Statement of Need:


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposes to establish 
a mandatory Internet-based electronic registration process for U.S. 
employers seeking to file H-1B petitions for alien workers subject to 
either the 65,000 or 20,000 caps. This registration process would allow 
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of 
available H-1B cap numbers. The mandatory proposed registration process 
will alleviate administrative burdens on USCIS service centers and 
eliminate the need for U.S. employers to needlessly prepare and file H-
1B petitions without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will 
ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named on that petition.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides limits 
on the number of alien temporary workers who may be granted H-1B 
nonimmigrant status each fiscal year (commonly known as the ``cap''). 
USCIS has responsibility for monitoring the requests for H-1B workers 
and administers the distribution of available H-1B cap numbers in light 
of these limits.

[[Page 64222]]

Alternatives:


To ensure a fair and orderly distribution of H-1B cap numbers, USCIS 
evaluated its current random selection process, and has found that when 
it receives a significant number of H-1B petitions within the first few 
days of the H-1B filing period, it is extremely difficult to handle the 
volume of petitions received in advance of the H-1B random selection 
process. Further, the current petition process of preparing and mailing 
H-1B petitions, with the required filing fee, can be burdensome and 
costly for employers, if the petition is returned because the cap was 
reached and the petition was not selected in the random selection 
process.


Accordingly, this rule proposes to implement a new process to allow 
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of 
available H-1B cap numbers without having to first prepare and submit 
the petition.


Risks:


There is a risk that a petitioner will submit multiple petitions for 
the same H-1B beneficiary so that the U.S. employer will have a better 
chance of his or her petition being selected. Accordingly, should USCIS 
receive multiple petitions for the same H-1B beneficiary by the same 
petitioner, the system will only accept the first petition and reject 
the duplicate petitions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


2443-08


Agency Contact:
Greg Richardson
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8465
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




60. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN 
PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE T 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 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 22 USC 
7101; 22 USC 7105; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of Trafficking 
and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-386. The T 
nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible victims of severe 
forms of trafficking in persons who aid the Government with their case 
against the traffickers and who can establish that they would suffer 
extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if they were removed 
from the United States after having completed their assistance to law 
enforcement. The rule establishes application procedures and 
responsibilities for the Department of Homeland Security and provides 
guidance to the public on how to meet certain requirements to obtain T 
nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant 
status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The 
Department will issue another interim final rule to make the changes 
required by recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for 
notice and comment.


Statement of Need:


T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of severe forms 
of trafficking in persons who have complied with any reasonable request 
for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of 
trafficking in persons, and who can demonstrate that they would suffer 
extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if removed from the 
United States. This rule addresses the essential elements that must be 
demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien; the 
procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant 
status; and evidentiary guidance to assist in the application process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), Public 
Law 106-386, established the T classification to create a safe haven 
for certain eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, 
who assist law enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting 
the perpetrators of these crimes.


Alternatives:


To develop a comprehensive Federal approach to identifying victims of 
severe forms of trafficking in persons, to provide them with benefits 
and services, and to enhance the Department of Justice's ability to 
prosecute traffickers and prevent trafficking in persons in the first 
place, a series of meetings with stakeholders were conducted with 
representatives from key Federal agencies; national, state, and local 
law enforcement associations; non-profit, community-based victim rights 
organizations; and other groups. Suggestions from these stakeholders 
were used in the drafting of this regulation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There is no cost associated with this regulation. Applicants for T 
nonimmigrant status do not pay application or biometric fees.


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


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

[[Page 64223]]

1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation 
and/or prosecution;


2. Heightened awareness by the law enforcement community of trafficking 
in persons;


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:


There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals who can be 
granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible applicants who are not 
granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be placed on 
a waiting list to be maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS).


To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS will use various 
means to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the waiting list, and 
their family members who are eligible for derivative T status, 
including its existing authority to grant deferred action, parole, and 
stays of removal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/31/02                     67 FR 4784
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   03/04/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          04/01/02
Interim Final Rule              09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2132-01; AG Order No. 2554-2002


There is a related rulemaking, CIS No. 2170-01, the new U nonimmigrant 
status (RIN 1615-AA67).


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19


Agency Contact:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



61. 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 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 8 USC 
1255; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245


Legal Deadline:


None


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. The Trafficking 
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, 
made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department will issue another 
interim final rule to make the changes required by recent legislation 
and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in lawful T or U 
nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful 
permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who 
are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons and who are 
assisting law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the 
acts of trafficking. U nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who 
are victims of certain crimes and are being helpful to the 
investigation or prosecution of those crimes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule implements the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 
Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28, 
2000), as amended, to permit aliens in lawful T or U nonimmigrant 
status to apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent 
residents.


Alternatives:


USCIS did not consider alternatives to managing T and U applications 
for adjustment of status. Ease of administration dictates that 
adjustment of status applications from T and U nonimmigrants would be 
best handled on a first in, first out basis, because that is the way 
applications for T and U status are currently handled.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


USCIS uses fees to fund the cost of processing applications and 
associated support benefits. The fees to be collected resulting from 
this rule will be approximately $3 million dollars in the first year, 
$1.9 million dollars in the second year, and an average about $32 
million dollars in the third and subsequent years. To estimate the new 
fee collections to be generated by this rule, USCIS estimated the fees 
to be collected for new applications for adjustment of status from T 
and U nonimmigrants and their eligible family members. After that, 
USCIS estimated fees from associated applications that are required 
such as biometrics, and others that are likely to occur in direct 
connection with applications for adjustment, such as employment 
authorization or travel authorization.


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;

[[Page 64224]]

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:


Congress created the U nonimmigrant status (``U visa'') to provide 
immigration protection to crime victims who assist in the investigation 
and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no specific data on 
alien crime victims, statistics maintained by the Department of Justice 
have shown that aliens, especially those aliens without legal status, 
are often reluctant to help in the investigation or prosecution of 
crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this reluctance and aid 
law enforcement accordingly.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              12/12/08                    73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   01/12/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/10/09
Interim Final Rule              09/00/10

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:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



62. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1101 note; 8 USC 1102; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


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


Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005.


Abstract:


This rule sets forth application requirements for a new nonimmigrant 
status. The U classification is for non-U.S. Citizen/Lawful Permanent 
Resident victims of certain crimes who cooperate with an investigation 
or prosecution of those crimes. There is a limit of 10,000 principals 
per year.


This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order to 
petition for the U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule 
addresses the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive 
the nonimmigrant classification; procedures that must be followed to 
make an application and evidentiary guidance to assist in the 
petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the 
United States.The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 
2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status 
provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department 
will issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by 
recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and 
comment.


Statement of Need:


This rule provides requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U 
nonimmigrant status. U nonimmigrant classification is available to 
alien victims of certain criminal activity who assist government 
officials in the investigation or prosecution of that criminal 
activity. The purpose of the U nonimmigrant classification is to 
strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and 
prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien crime 
victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress created the U nonimmigrant classification in the Battered 
Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 (BIWPA). Congress intended to 
strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and 
prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of 
aliens, and other crimes, while offering protection to victims of such 
crimes. Congress also sought to encourage law enforcement officials to 
better serve immigrant crime victims.


Alternatives:


USCIS has identified four alternatives, the first being chosen for the 
rule:


1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
Petitions received after the limit has been reached would be reviewed 
to determine whether or not they are approvable but for the numerical 
cap. Approvable petitions that are reviewed after the numerical cap has 
been reached would be placed on a waiting list and written notice sent 
to the petitioner. Priority on the waiting list would be based upon the 
date on which the petition is filed. USCIS would provide petitioners on 
the waiting list with interim relief until the start of the next fiscal 
year in the form of deferred action, parole, or a stays of removal.


2. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis, 
establishing a waiting list for petitions that are pending or received 
after the numerical cap has been reached. Priority on the waiting list 
would be based upon the date on which the petition was filed. USCIS 
would not provide interim relief to petitioners whose petitions are 
placed on the waiting list.


3. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
However, new filings would be reviewed to identify particularly 
compelling cases for adjudication. New filings would be rejected once 
the numerical cap is reached. No official waiting list would be 
established; however, interim relief until the start of the next fiscal 
year would be provided for some compelling cases. If a case was not 
particularly

[[Page 64225]]

compelling, the filing would be denied or rejected.


4. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. 
However, new filings would be rejected once the numerical cap is 
reached. No waiting list would be established, nor would interim relief 
be granted.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


USCIS estimates the total annual cost of this interim rule to be $6.2 
million. This cost includes the biometric services fee that petitioners 
must pay to USCIS, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the 
required forms, the opportunity cost of time required for a visit to an 
Application Support Center, and the cost of traveling to an Application 
Support Center.


This rule will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to 
investigate and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual 
assault, and trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien 
crime victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United 
States.


Risks:


In the case of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury, 
the interpretive challenge for USCIS was to determine whom the BIWPA 
was meant to protect, given that these criminal activities are not 
targeted against a person. Accordingly it was determined that a victim 
of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury is an alien 
who has been directly and proximately harmed by the perpetrator of one 
of these three crimes, where there are reasonable grounds to conclude 
that the perpetrator principally committed the offense as a means: (1) 
to avoid or frustrate efforts to investigate, arrest, prosecute, or 
otherwise bring him or her to justice for other criminal activity; or 
(2) to further his or her abuse or exploitation of, or undue control 
over, the alien through manipulation of the legal system.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              09/17/07                    72 FR 53013
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/17/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/17/07
Interim Final Rule              09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39


Agency Contact:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



63. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL 
NONIMMIGRANT INVESTOR CLASSIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229, Commonwealth Natural Resources Act, 
established a transitional period for the application of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Although the CNMI is subject to most 
U.S. laws, the CNMI has administered its own immigration system under 
the terms of its 1976 covenant with the United States. The Department 
of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its regulations by creating 
a new E2 CNMI Investor classification for the duration of the 
transition period. These temporary provisions are necessary to reduce 
the potential harm to the CNMI economy before these foreign workers and 
investors are required to convert into U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant 
visa classifications.


Statement of Need:


This final rule responds to a Congressional mandate that requires the 
Federal Government to assume responsibility for visas for entry to CNMI 
by foreign investors.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Public Costs: This rule reduces the employer's annual cost by $200 per 
year ($500 - $300), plus any further reduction caused by eliminating 
the paperwork burden associated with the CNMI's process. In 2006 - 
2007, there were 464 long-term business entry permit holders and 20 
perpetual foreign investor entry permit holders and retiree investor 
permit holders, totaling 484, or approximately 500 foreign registered 
investors. The total savings to employers from this rule is thus 
expected to be $100,000 per year ($500 x $200). Cost to the Federal 
Government: The yearly Federal Government cost is estimated at $42,310.


Benefits: The potential abuse of the visa system by those seeking to 
illegally emigrate from the CNMI to Guam or elsewhere in the United 
States reduces the integrity of the United States immigration system by 
increasing the ease by which aliens may unlawfully enter the United 
States through the CNMI. Federal oversight and regulations of CNMI 
foreign investors should help reduce abuse by foreign employees in the 
CNMI, and should help reduce the opportunity for aliens to use the CNMI 
as an entry point into the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/14/09                    74 FR 46938
NPRM Comment Period End         10/14/09
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2458-08

[[Page 64226]]

Agency Contact:
Steven Viger
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



64. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL WORKERS 
CLASSIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-229


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214.2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is creating a new, temporary, 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only transitional 
worker classification (CW classification) in accordance with title VII 
of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). The 
transitional worker program is intended to provide for an orderly 
transition from the CNMI permit system to the U.S. federal immigration 
system under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A CW 
transitional worker is an alien worker who is ineligible for another 
classification under the INA and who performs services or labor for an 
employer in the CNMI. The CNRA imposes a five-year transition period 
before the INA requirements become fully applicable in the CNMI. The 
new CW classification will be in effect for the duration of that 
transition period, unless extended by the Secretary of Labor. The rule 
also establishes employment authorization incident to CW status.


Statement of Need:


Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA) 
created a new, temporary, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
(CNMI)-only transitional worker classification. The transitional worker 
program is intended to provide for an orderly transition from the CNMI 
permit system to the U.S. federal immigration system under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Each of the estimated 22,000 CNMI transitional workers will be required 
to pay a $320 fee per year, for an annualized cost to the affected 
public of $7 million. However, since these workers will not have to pay 
CNMI fees, the total present value costs of this rule are a net cost 
savings ranging from $9.8 million to $13.4 million depending on the 
validity period of CW status (1 or 2 years), whether out-of-status 
aliens present in the CNMI are eligible for CW status, and the discount 
rate applied. The intended benefits of the rule include improvements in 
national and homeland security and protection of human rights.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/27/09                    74 FR 55094
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/27/09
Final Action                    05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Greg Richardson
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8465
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



65. REVISIONS TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH 
OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS; CONFORMING REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-229


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 208 and 209; 8 CFR 214 and 215; 8 CFR 217; 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 248; 
8 CFR 264; 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated Natural Resources Act 
(CNRA) of 2008.


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) are implementing conforming amendments to their respective 
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act 
(CNRA) of 2008. The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United 
States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This 
rule amends the regulations governing asylum and credible fear of 
persecution determinations; references to the geographical ``United 
States'' and its territories and possessions; alien classifications 
authorized for employment; documentation acceptable for Form I-9, 
Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9); employment of 
unauthorized aliens; and adjustment of status of immediate relatives 
admitted under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Additionally, this 
rule makes a technical change to correct a citation error in the 
regulations governing the Visa Waiver Program and the regulations 
governing asylum and withholding of removal. The purpose of this rule 
is to ensure that the regulations apply to persons and entities 
arriving in or physically present in the CNMI to the extent authorized 
by the CNRA.


Statement of Need:


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) are implementing conforming amendments to their respective 
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 
2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States 
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule 
amends the regulations governing: asylum and credible fear of 
persecution determinations; references to the geographical ``United 
States'' and its territories and possessions; alien classifications 
authorized for employment; documentation acceptable for Employment 
Eligibility Verification; employment of unauthorized aliens; and 
adjustment of status of immediate relatives admitted under the Guam-
CNMI Visa Waiver Program.

[[Page 64227]]

Additionally, this rule makes a technical change to correct a citation 
error in the regulations governing the Visa Waiver Program and the 
regulations governing asylum and withholding of removal.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The stated goals of the CNRA are to ensure effective border control 
procedures, to properly address national security and homeland security 
concerns by extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and to maximize 
the CNMI's potential for future economic and business growth. While 
those goals are expected to be partly facilitated by the changes made 
in this rule, they are general and qualitative in nature. There are no 
specific changes made by this rule with sufficiently identifiable 
direct or indirect economic impacts so as to be quantified.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/28/09                    74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/27/09
Final Action                    10/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS 2460-08


Agency Contact:
Evelyn Sahli
Chief, Policy and Regulation Management Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1722
RIN: 1615-AB77
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




66. STANDARDS FOR LIVING ORGANISMS IN SHIPS' BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED 
IN U.S. WATERS (USCG-2001-10486)

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 4711


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 151


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would propose to add performance standards to 33 CFR 
part 151, subparts C and D, for all discharges of ballast water. It 
supports the Coast Guard's broad roles and responsibilities of maritime 
safety and maritime stewardship. This project is significant due to 
high interest from Congress and several Federal and State agencies, as 
well as costs imposed on industry.


Statement of Need:


The unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species into U.S. 
waters via the discharge of vessels' ballast water has had significant 
impacts to the nation's aquatic resources, biological diversity, and 
coastal infrastructures. This rulemaking would amend the ballast water 
management requirements (33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D) and 
establish standards that specify the level of biological treatment that 
must be achieved by a ballast water treatment system before ballast 
water can be discharged into U.S. waters. This would increase the Coast 
Guard's ability to protect U.S. waters against the introduction of 
nonindigenous species via ballast water discharges.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress has directed the Coast Guard to develop ballast water 
regulations to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species into 
U.S. waters under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 
Control Act of 1990 and reauthorized and amended it with the National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996. This rulemaking does not have a statutory 
deadline.


Alternatives:


We would use the standard rulemaking process to develop regulations for 
ballast water discharge standards. Nonregulatory alternatives such as 
navigation and vessel inspection circulars and the Marine Safety Manual 
have been considered and may be used for the development of policy and 
directives to provide the maritime industry and our field offices 
guidelines for implementation of the regulations. Nonregulatory 
alternatives cannot be substituted for the standards we would develop 
with this rule. Congress has directed the Coast Guard to review and 
revise its BWM regulations not less than every three years based on the 
best scientific information available to the Coast Guard at the time of 
that review.


This proposed rule includes a phase-in schedule (Phase-one and Phase-
two) for the implementation of ballast water discharge standards based 
on vessel's ballast water capacity and build date. The proposed phase-
one standard is the same standard adopted by the International Maritime 
Organization (IMO) for concentration of living organisms in ballast 
water discharges. For phase-two, we propose incorporating a 
practicability review to determine whether technology to achieve a more 
stringent standard than the IMO can practicably be implemented.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This proposed rule would affect vessels operating in U.S. waters that 
are equipped with ballast tanks. Owners and operators of these vessels 
would be required to install and operate Coast Guard approved ballast 
water management systems before discharging ballast water into U.S. 
waters. Cost estimates for individual vessels vary due to the vessel 
class, type and size, and the particular technology of the ballast 
water management system installed. We expect the highest annual costs 
of this rulemaking during the periods of installation as the bulk of 
the existing fleet of vessels must meet the standards according to 
proposed phase-in schedules. The primary cost driver of this rulemaking 
is the installation costs for all existing vessels. Operating and 
maintenance costs are substantially less than the installation costs.

[[Page 64228]]

We evaluated the benefits of this rulemaking by researching the impact 
of aquatic nonindigenous species (NIS) invasions in the U.S. waters, 
since ballast water discharge is one of the main vectors of NIS 
introductions in the marine environment. The primary benefit of this 
rulemaking would be the economic and environmental damages avoided from 
the reduction in the number of new invasions as a result of the 
reduction in concentration of organisms in discharged ballast water. We 
expect that the benefits of this rulemaking would increase as the 
technology is developed to achieve more stringent ballast water 
discharge standards.


At this time, we estimate that this rulemaking would have annual 
impacts that exceed $100 million and result in an economically 
significant regulatory action.


Risks:


Ballast water discharged from ships is a significant pathway for the 
introduction and spread of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species. 
These organisms, which may be plants, animals, bacteria or pathogens, 
have the potential to displace native species, degrade native habitats, 
spread disease and disrupt human economic and social activities that 
depend on water resources. It is estimated that for areas such as the 
Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and Chesapeake Bay, one nonindigenous 
species becomes established per year. At this time, it is difficult to 
estimate the reduction of risk that would be accomplished by 
promulgating this rulemaking; however, it is expected a major reduction 
will occur. We are currently requesting information on costs and 
benefits of more stringent ballast water discharge standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/04/02                     67 FR 9632
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/03/02
NPRM                            08/28/09                    74 FR 44632
Public Meeting                  09/14/09                    74 FR 46964
Public Meeting                  09/22/09                    74 FR 48190
Public Meeting                  09/28/09                    74 FR 49355
Notice--Extension of 
    Comment Period              10/15/09                    74 FR 52941
Public Meeting                  10/22/09                    74 FR 54533
Public Meeting Correction       10/26/09                    74 FR 54944
NPRM Comment Period End         12/04/09                    74 FR 52941
Final Rule                      12/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mr. John C Morris
Project Manager
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street, SW, STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1433
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCG



67. INSPECTION OF TOWING VESSELS (USCG-2006-24412)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


46 USC 3301, 46 USC 3305, 46 USC 3306, and 46 USC 3103; 46 USC 3703 
[DHS Delegation No 0170.1]


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 156 and 157; 33 CFR 163 and 164; 46 CFR 135 to 146


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would implement a program of inspection for 
certification of towing vessels, which were previously uninspected. It 
would prescribe standards for safety management systems and third-party 
entities along with standards for construction, operation, vessel 
systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping. Due to the costs imposed 
on an entire uninspected segment of the marine industry, the Coast 
Guard projects that this will be a significant rulemaking, especially 
for small entities.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking would implement sections 409 and 415 of the Coast Guard 
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent of the proposed 
rule is to promote safer work practices and reduce casualties on towing 
vessels by ensuring that towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety 
standards and safety management systems. This proposed rule was 
developed in cooperation with the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory 
Committee. It would establish a new subchapter dedicated to towing 
vessels and covering vessel equipment, systems, operational standards 
and inspection requirements.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Proposed new Subchapter Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3301, 3306, 3308, 
3316, 8104, 8904; 33 CFR 1.05; DHS Delegation 0170.1.


The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (CGMTA 2004), 
Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028, (Aug. 9, 2004), established new 
authorities for towing vessels as follows:


Section 415 added towing vessels, as defined in section 2101 of title 
46, United States Code (U.S.C.), as a class of vessels that are subject 
to safety inspections under chapter 33 of that title (Id. at 1047).


Section 415 also added new section 3306(j) of title 46, authorizing the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish, by regulation, a safety 
management system appropriate for the characteristics, methods of 
operation, and nature of service of towing vessels (Id.).


Section 409 added new section 8904(c)of title 46, U.S.C., authorizing 
the Secretary to establish, by regulation, ``maximum hours of service 
(including recording and recordkeeping of that service) of individuals 
engaged on a towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in length measured 
from end to end over the deck (excluding the sheer).'' (Id. at 1044-
45).


Alternatives:


We considered the following alternatives for the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM):


One regulatory alternative would be the addition of towing vessels to 
one or more existing subchapters that deal with other inspected 
vessels, such as cargo and miscellaneous vessels (subchapter I), 
offshore supply vessels (subchapter L), or small passenger vessels 
(subchapter T). This option would involve very minimal regulatory work. 
We do not believe, however, that this approach would recognize the

[[Page 64229]]

often ``unique'' nature and characteristics of the towing industry in 
general and towing vessels in particular.


In addition to inclusion in a particular existing subchapter (or 
subchapters) for equipment-related concerns, the same approach could be 
adopted for use of a safety management system by merely requiring 
compliance with Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, part 96 (Rules 
for the Safe Operation of Vessels and Safety Management Systems). 
Adoption of these requirements, without an alternative safety 
management system, would also not be``appropriate for the 
characteristics, methods of operation, and nature of service of towing 
vessels.''


The Coast Guard has had extensive public involvement (four public 
meetings, over 100 separate comments submitted to the docket, as well 
as extensive ongoing dialogue with members of the Towing Safety 
Advisory Committee (TSAC)) regarding development of these regulations. 
Adoption of one of the alternatives discussed above would likely 
receive little public or industry support, especially considering the 
TSAC efforts toward development of standards to be incorporated into a 
separate subchapter dealing specifically with the inspection of towing 
vessels.


An approach that would seem to be more in keeping with the intent of 
Congress would be the adoption of certain existing standards from those 
applied to other inspected vessels. In some cases, these existing 
standards would be appropriately modified and tailored to the nature 
and operation of certain categories of towing vessels. The adopted 
standards would come from inspected vessels that have demonstrated 
``good marine practice'' within the maritime community. These 
regulations would be incorporated into a subchapter specifically 
addressing the inspection for certification of towing vessels. The law 
requiring the inspection for certification of towing vessels is a 
statutory mandate, compelling the Coast Guard to develop regulations 
appropriate for the nature of towing vessels and their specific 
industry.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate that 1,059 owners and operators (companies) would incur 
additional costs from this rulemaking. The rulemaking would affect a 
total of 5,208 vessels owned and operated by these companies. We 
estimate that 232 of the companies, operating 2,941 vessels, already 
use some type of safety management system. We estimate that 827 of the 
companies, operating 2,267 vessels, do not currently use a safety 
management system. Our cost assessment includes existing and new 
vessels. We are currently developing cost estimates for the proposed 
rule.


The Coast Guard developed the requirements in the proposed rule by 
researching both the human factors and equipment failures that caused 
towing vessel accidents. We believe that the proposed rule would 
address a wide range of causes of towing vessel accidents and supports 
the main goal of improving safety in the towing industry. The primary 
benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in vessel safety and a 
resulting decrease in the risk of towing vessel accidents and their 
consequences.


Risks:


This regulatory action would reduce the risk of towing vessel accidents 
and their consequences. Towing vessels accidents result in fatalities, 
injuries, property damage, pollution, and delays.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dave Dolloff
Program Manager, CG-5222
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW. STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1415
RIN: 1625-AB06
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




68. ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1365b(k)(1); 8 USC 1365b(k)(3); 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1185(b)


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 103


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


CBP already operates several regulatory and non-regulatory 
international registered traveler programs, also known as trusted 
traveler programs. In order to comply with the Intelligence Reform 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRPTA), CBP is proposing to amend its 
regulations to establish another international registered traveler 
program called Global Entry. The Global Entry program would expedite 
the movement of low-risk, frequent international air travelers by 
providing an expedited inspection process for pre-approved, pre-
screened travelers. These travelers would proceed directly to automated 
Global Entry kiosks upon their arrival in the United States. This 
Global Entry Program, along with the other programs that have already 
been established, are consistent with CBP's strategic goal of 
facilitating legitimate trade and travel while securing the homeland. A 
pilot of Global Entry has been operating since June 6, 2008.


Statement of Need:


CBP has been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several 
airports since June 6, 2008, and the pilot has been very successful. As 
a result, there is a desire on the part of the public that the program 
be established as a permanent program, and expanded, if possible. By 
establishing this program, CBP will make great strides toward 
facilitating the movement of people in a more efficient manner, thereby 
accomplishing our strategic goal of balancing legitimate travel with 
security. Through the use of biometric and record-keeping technologies, 
the risk of terrorists entering the United

[[Page 64230]]

States would be reduced. Improving security and facilitating travel at 
the border, both of which are accomplished by Global Entry, are primary 
concerns within CBP jurisdiction.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Global Entry is a voluntary program that provides a benefit to the 
public by speeding the CBP processing time for participating travelers. 
Travelers who are otherwise admissible to the United States will be 
able to enter or exit the country regardless of whether they 
participate in Global Entry. CBP estimates that over a five year 
period, 250,000 enrollees will be processed (an annual average of 
50,000 individuals). CBP will charge a fee of $100 per applicant and 
estimates that each application will require 40 minutes (0.67 hours) of 
the enrollee's time to search existing data resources, gather the data 
needed, and complete and review the application form. Additionally, an 
enrollee will experience an ``opportunity cost of time'' to travel to 
an Enrollment Center upon acceptance of the initial application. We 
assume that one hour will be required for this time spent at the 
Enrollment Center and travel to and from the Center, though we note 
that during the pilot program, many applicants coordinated their trip 
to an Enrollment Center with their travel at the airport. We have used 
one hour of travel time so as not to underestimate potential 
opportunity costs for enrolling in the program. We use a value of 
$28.60 for the opportunity cost for this time, which is taken from the 
Federal Aviation Administration's ``Economic Values for FAA Investment 
and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide.'' (July 3, 2007). This value is the 
weighted average for U.S. business and leisure travelers. For this 
evaluation, we assume that all enrollees will be U.S. citizens, U.S. 
nationals, or Lawful Permanent Residents.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/19/09                    74 FR 59932
NPRM Comment Period End         01/19/10
Final Rule                      11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.globalentry.gov

Agency Contact:
John P. Wagner
Director, Trusted Traveler Programs
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2118
RIN: 1651-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCBP

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




69. IMPORTER SECURITY FILING AND ADDITIONAL CARRIER REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


PL 109-347, sec 203; 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1431; 19 USC 1433 to 
1434; 19 USC 1624; 19 USC 2071 note; 46 USC 60105


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 12.3; 19 CFR 18.5; 19 CFR 103.31a; 19 CFR 113; 19 CFR 
123.92; 19 CFR 141.113; 19 CFR 146.32; 19 CFR 149; 19 CFR 192.14


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This interim final rule implements the provisions of section 203 of the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. It amends 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 
insure cargo safety and security. Under the rule, importers and 
carriers must submit specified information to CBP before the cargo is 
brought into the United States by vessel. This advance information will 
improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities, assist CBP in 
increasing the security of the global trading system, and facilitate 
the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the 
United States.


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 requiring 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 others are being required from ``importers,'' as that term is 
defined for purposes of the regulations.


This rule improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities and 
enables 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

[[Page 64231]]

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 and evaluated the following four alternatives:


Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings and 
Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is exempt from 
the Importer Security Filing requirements;


Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier 
Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is not exempt from the Importer 
Security Filing requirements;


Alternative 3: Only Importer Security Filings are required. Bulk cargo 
is exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; and


Alternative 4: Only the Additional Carrier Requirements are required.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


When the NPRM was published, CBP estimated that approximately 11 
million import shipments conveyed by 1,000 different carrier companies 
operating 37,000 unique voyages or vessel-trips to the United States 
will be subject to the rule. Annualized costs range from $890 million 
to $7.0 billion (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. CBP 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 has undertaken 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. CBP's 
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 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 2 days for the first year of implementation (2008) and a delay of 1 
day for years 2 through 10 (2009 to 2017).


The benefit of this rule is the improvement of CBP's risk assessment 
and targeting capabilities, while at the same time, enabling CBP 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 the world economy.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/02/08                       73 FR 90
NPRM Comment Period End         03/03/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    02/01/08                     73 FR 6061
NPRM Comment Period End         03/18/08
Interim Final Rule              11/25/08                    73 FR 71730
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   01/26/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          06/01/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

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



70. CHANGES TO THE VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT THE ELECTRONIC 
SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION (ESTA) PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1187; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 217.5


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 64232]]

Abstract:


This rule implements the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA) for aliens who travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP 
travelers are required to provide certain biographical information to 
CBP electronically before departing for the United States. This allows 
CBP to determine before their departure, whether these travelers are 
eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP and whether such 
travel poses a security risk. The rule is intended to fulfill the 
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border 
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the 
VWP, the ESTA is intended to increase national security and to provide 
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before 
boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays at the ports of entry.


Statement of Need:


Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and 
implement a fully automated electronic travel authorization system that 
will collect biographical and other information in advance of travel to 
determine the eligibility of the alien to travel to the United States 
and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or 
security risk. ESTA is intended to fulfill these statutory 
requirements.


Under this rule, VWP travelers provide certain information to CBP 
electronically before departing for the United States. VWP travelers 
who receive travel authorization under ESTA are not required to 
complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on a carrier that is 
capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining to the 
traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's boarding status. By 
automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to provide VWP 
traveler data in advance of travel, CBP is able to determine the 
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to 
travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel poses 
a law enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin 
travel to the United States. ESTA provides for greater efficiencies in 
the screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to identify 
subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United 
States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon 
arrival at U.S. ports of entry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The ESTA program is based on congressional authority provided under 
section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 and section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA).


Alternatives:


CBP considered three alternatives to this rule:


1. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each 
travel authorization (more costly)


2. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the 
passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less 
burdensome)


3. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries 
entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced 
burden for newly entering countries)


CBP determined that the rule provides the greatest level of enhanced 
security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling public and 
potentially affected air carriers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS and CBP to establish the 
eligibility of certain foreign travelers to travel to the United States 
under the VWP, and whether the alien's proposed travel to the United 
States poses a law enforcement or security risk. Upon review of such 
information, DHS will determine whether the alien is eligible to travel 
to the United States under the VWP.


Impacts to Air & Sea Carriers


CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based air carriers and eleven sea 
carriers will be affected by the rule. An additional 35 foreign-based 
air carriers and five sea carriers will be affected. CBP concluded that 
costs to air and sea carriers to support the requirements of the ESTA 
program could cost $137 million to $1.1 billion over the next 10 years 
depending on the level of effort required to integrate their systems 
with ESTA, how many passengers they need to assist in applying for 
travel authorizations, and the discount rate applied to annual costs.


Impacts to Travelers


ESTA will present new costs and burdens to travelers in VWP countries 
who were not previously required to submit any information to the U.S. 
Government in advance of travel to the United States. Travelers from 
Roadmap countries who become VWP countries will also incur costs and 
burdens, though these are much less than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa 
(category B1/B2), which is currently required for short-term pleasure 
or business to travel to the United States. CBP estimated that the 
total quantified costs to travelers will range from $1.1 billion to 
$3.5 billion depending on the number of travelers, the value of time, 
and the discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to range from 
$133 million to $366 million.


Benefits


As set forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the intent of 
Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver 
Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 
8 USC 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program security requirements 
and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and eligible 
nationals of eligible foreign countries that are partners in the war on 
terrorism.


By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able to 
determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the 
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to 
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border 
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the 
VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide 
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well 
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially 
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry.


CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers could total $1.1 
billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized 
benefits could range from $134 million to $345 million.


In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers should

[[Page 64233]]

also experience the benefit of not having to administer the I-94W 
except in limited situations. While CBP has not conducted an analysis 
of the potential savings, it should accrue benefits from not having to 
produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP should also be able to accrue 
savings related to data entry and archiving. Carriers should realize 
some savings as well, though carriers will still have to administer the 
I-94 for those passengers not traveling under the VWP and the Customs 
Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the aircraft and vessel.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Action            06/09/08                    73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   08/08/08
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/08/08
Notice - Announcing Date 
    Rule Becomes 
    Mandatory                   11/13/08                    73 FR 67354
Final Action                    01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id--visa/esta/


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Suzanne Shepherd
Director, Electronic System for Travel Authorization
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2073
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1651-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCBP



71. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUAM-CNMI VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-229, sec 702


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 
122.49a


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, Public Law 110-229.


Abstract:


This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to 
implement section 702 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 
(CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of the United States to 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides 
for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. This 
rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending the regulations to 
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth the requirements for 
nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure and 
solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. This 
rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of 
administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.


Statement of Need:


Currently, aliens who are citizens of eligible countries may apply for 
admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for 
a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for business or pleasure, 
without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are 
otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), supersedes the Guam visa waiver 
program by providing for a visa waiver program for Guam and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 
Program). Section 702(b) requires DHS to promulgate regulations within 
180 days of enactment of the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from 
eligible countries to apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for 
business or pleasure, without a visa, for a period of authorized stay 
of no longer than forty-five (45) days.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based on congressional authority 
provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 
(CNRA).


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of 
the rule will be for visitors from those countries who are not included 
in either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program established by the rule. These visitors must apply for 
U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or 
consulates and higher fees than the CNMI currently assesses for its 
visitor entry permits. CBP anticipates that the annual cost to the CNMI 
will be $6 million. These are losses associated with the reduced visits 
from foreign travelers who may no longer visit the CNMI upon 
implementation of this rule.


The anticipated benefits of the rule are enhanced security that will 
result from the federalization of the immigration functions in the 
CNMI.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/16/09                     74 FR 2824
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   01/16/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          03/17/09
Final Action                    06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Cheryl C. Peters
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1707
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1651-AA77

[[Page 64234]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




72. AIRCRAFT REPAIR STATION SECURITY

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1554


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, Rule within 240 days of the date of 
enactment of Vision 100.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule within 1 year after the date of 
enactment of 9/11 Commission Act.


Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization 
Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 
U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA issue ``final regulations to ensure the 
security of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations.'' Section 
1616 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007 (Pub. L. 110--531; Aug. 3, 2007; 21 Stat. 266) requires TSA issue 
a final rule on foreign repair station security.


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 and section 1616 of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007. The regulation will propose general requirements for 
security programs to be adopted and implemented by repair stations 
certificated 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. The delay in 
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking has been due to TSA 
scoping out the project, including making site visits to repair 
stations in different locations around the world.


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:


Section 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. Section 1616 of Public Law 
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 certificated or is in the process of 
certification.


Alternatives:


TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security 
programs for aircraft repair stations. As part of its notice of 
proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous 
alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the 
requirements of the statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TSA anticipates costs to aircraft repair stations mainly related to the 
establishment of security programs, which may include adding such 
measures as access controls, a personnel identification system, 
security awareness training, the designation of a security coordinator, 
employee background verification, and a contingency plan.


It is difficult to identify the particular risk reduction associated 
with the implementation of this rule because the nature of value of the 
benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist attack is a function of both 
the probability of an attack and the value of the consequence. When the 
proposed rule is published, DHS will provide a break even analysis 
discussing the program elements that would help achieve risk 
reductions. These elements and related qualitative benefits include a 
reduction in the risk of an aircraft being sabotaged, resulting in 
potential injury or loss of life for the passengers and crew, or 
reduction in the risk of being hijacked, resulting in the additional 
potential for the aircraft being used as a weapon of mass destruction.


Risks:


The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United 
States to terrorism. By requiring security programs for aircraft repair 
stations, TSA will focus on preventing unauthorized access to repair 
work and to aircraft to prevent sabotage or hijacking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice--Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        02/24/04                     69 FR 8357
Report to Congress              08/24/04
NPRM                            11/18/09                    74 FR 59873
NPRM Comment Period End         01/19/10
Final Rule                      11/00/10

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

[[Page 64235]]

Agency Contact:
Celio Young
Program Manager, Repair Stations
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, General Aviation 
Division
TSA-28, HQ, E5
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3580
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Thomas (Tom) Philson
Manager, Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3236
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Linda L. Kent
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-126S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2675
Fax: 571 227-1381
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________



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:


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


Legal Authority:


6 USC 469; 18 USC 842; 18 USC 845; 46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 
49 USC 114; 49 USC114(f)(3); 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:


On October 30, 2008, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 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. TSA also proposed that all aircraft 
operations, including corporate and private charter operations, with 
aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) above 
12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') be required to adopt a large 
aircraft security program. TSA also proposed to require certain 
airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs. TSA is 
preparing a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), which will include a comment 
period for public comments.


After considering comments received on the NPRM and meeting with 
stakeholders, TSA decided to revise the original proposal to tailor 
security requirements to the general aviation industry. TSA is 
considering alternatives to the following proposed provisions in the 
SNPRM: (1) the weight threshold for aircraft subject to TSA regulation; 
(2) compliance oversight; (3) watch list matching of passengers; (4) 
prohibited items; (5) scope of the background check requirements and 
the procedures used to implement the requirement; and (6) other issues.


Statement of Need:


This rule would enhance current security measures, and would apply 
security measures currently in place for operators of certain types of 
aircraft, to operators of other aircraft. 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 of 
sufficient size and weight may 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, the 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 the features that are necessary to enhance security.


Alternatives:


DHS considered continuing to use voluntary guidance to secure general 
aviation, but determined that to ensure that each aircraft operator 
maintains an appropriate level of security, these security measures 
would need to be mandatory requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of security and 
quality governance. The rule would enhance security by expanding the 
mandatory use of security measures to certain operators of large 
aircraft that are not currently 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.


In the NPRM, TSA estimated the total 10-year cost of the program would 
be $1.3 billion, discounted at 7 percent. Aircraft operators, airport 
operators, and TSA would incur costs to comply with the requirements of 
the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program rule. Aircraft operator 
costs comprise 85 percent 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 be 
newly subjected to the proposed rule.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses the national security risk of general 
aviation aircraft being used as a weapon or as a means to transport 
persons or weapons that could pose a threat to the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/30/08                    73 FR 64790
NPRM Comment Period End         12/29/08
Notice--NPRM Comment 
    Period Extended             11/25/08                    73 FR 71590
NPRM Extended Comment 
    Period End                  02/27/09

[[Page 64236]]

Notice--Public Meetings; 
    Requests for Comments       12/28/08                    73 FR 77045
Supplemental NPRM               10/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local


Additional Information:


Public Meetings held on: Jan. 6, 2009 at White Plains, NY; Jan. 8, 
2009, at Atlanta, GA; Jan 16, 2009, at Chicago, IL; Jan. 23, 2009, at 
Burbank, CA; and Jan. 28, 2009, at Houston, TX.


Additional Comment Sessions held in Arlington, VA, on April 16, 2009, 
May 6, 2009, and June 15, 2009.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Erik Jensen
Assistant General Manager, General Aviation Security
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-132S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2154
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: [email protected]

Holly Merwin
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-343N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-4656
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Mai Dinh
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]

Kiersten Ols
Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-316N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2403
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 AND PASSENGER RAILROADS--SECURITY TRAINING OF 
EMPLOYEES

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1408 and 1517


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule for public 
transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of enactment.


Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads is due 6 months 
after date of enactment.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation 
agencies is due 1 year after date of enactment.


According to section 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 for public transportation 
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), 
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act.According to section 1517 of the same Act, final regulations 
for railroads are due no later than 6 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose a new 
regulation to improve the security of public transportation and 
passenger railroads 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 and a passenger railroad training program to prepare public 
transportation and passenger railroad employees, including frontline 
employees, for potential security threats and conditions.


Statement of Need:


A security training program for public transportation agencies and for 
passenger railroads is proposed to prepare public transportation and 
passenger railroad employees, including frontline employees, for 
potential security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408 and 1517 of Public Law 110-53, 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 
3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).


Alternatives:


TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security 
programs for these operators. As part of its notice of proposed 
rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous ways in which 
the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Risks:


The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United 
States to terrorism. By providing for security training for personnel, 
TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack 
on this transportation sector.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10

[[Page 64237]]

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 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: [email protected]

Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA57, Related to 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



75. FREIGHT RAILROADS--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1517


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule is due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new 
regulations to improve the security of freight railroads in accordance 
with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007. The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a security 
training program to prepare freight railroad employees, including 
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 security 
training program to prepare freight railroad employees, including 
frontline employees, for potential security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Alternatives:


TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security 
programs for these operators. As part of its notice of proposed 
rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous ways in which 
the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Risks:


The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United 
States to terrorism. By providing for security training for personnel, 
TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack 
on this transportation sector.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Scott Gorton
Policy and Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-1251
Fax: 571 227-2930
Email: [email protected]

Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

David Kasminoff
Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Related to 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA57

[[Page 64238]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



76. OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1534


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007); 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after 
date of enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose 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 security 
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 security training 
program to prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential 
security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Paul Pitzer
Policy and Planning Branch Chief; Highway and Motor Carrier Programs
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-1233
Email: [email protected]

Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Denise Starr
Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, E12-419N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-5130
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Related to 1652-AA57
RIN: 1652-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA



77. VETTING, ADJUDICATION, AND REDRESS PROCESS AND FEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, 1602


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new 
regulations to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication 
criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of 
individuals for which TSA is responsible. In accordance with the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the 
scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all 
modes of transportation who are required to undergo an STA in other 
regulatory programs, including certain aviation workers and frontline 
employees for public transportation agencies, railroads, and over-the-
road buses.


In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and 
credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in 
processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying 
language and removing redundancies.


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 U.S.C. 114; sections 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, and 1602 of Public Law 
110-53, Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking (NPRM)           02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 64239]]

Agency Contact:
Hao-y Tran Froemling
Program Manager, Maritime and Surface Credentialing
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
TSA-19, HQ, E3-401N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6019
Phone: 571 227-2782
Email: [email protected]

Adam Sicking
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-345N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2304
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Christine Beyer
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2657
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--TSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




78. AIR CARGO SCREENING

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


PL 110-53, sec 1602; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44905; 
49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 
46105


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1548; 49 CFR 
1549


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, February 3, 2009, Screen 50 percent of cargo on 
passenger aircraft.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2010, Screen 100 percent of cargo on 
passenger aircraft.


Section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, Aug. 3, 2007) requires 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a system to screen 50 
percent of cargo on passenger aircraft not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment and 100 percent of such cargo not later than 3 
years after the date of enactment.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is establishing the 
Certified Cargo Screening Program that will certify shippers, 
manufacturers, and other entities to screen air cargo intended for 
transport on a passenger aircraft. This will be the primary means 
through which TSA will meet the requirements of section 1602 of the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that 
mandates that 100 percent of air cargo transported on passenger 
aircraft, operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air 
transportation or intrastate air transportation, must be screened by 
August 2010, to ensure the security of all such passenger aircraft 
carrying cargo.


Under this rulemaking, each certified cargo screening facility (CCSF) 
and their employees and authorized representatives that will be 
screening cargo must successfully complete a security threat 
assessment. The CCSF must also submit to an audit of their security 
measures by TSA-approved auditors, screen cargo using TSA-approved 
methods, and initiate strict chain of custody measures to ensure the 
security of the cargo throughout the supply chain prior to tendering it 
for transport on passenger aircraft.


Statement of Need:


TSA is establishing a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported 
on passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier 
in air transportation or intrastate air transportation to ensure the 
security of all such passenger aircraft carrying cargo.


The system shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, 
procedures, personnel, or other methods approved by the Administrator 
of TSA, used to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft, provide a 
level of security commensurate with the level of security for the 
screening of passenger checked baggage.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, 10/3/
2007), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44901(g).


Alternatives:


The Interim Final Rule (IFR) states that as an alternative to 
establishing the CCSP, TSA considered meeting the statutory 
requirements by having aircraft operators screen cargo intended for 
transportation on passenger aircraft--that is, continuing the current 
cargo screening program but expanding it to 85 percent of air cargo on 
passenger aircraft. Under this alternative, the cost drivers for this 
alternative are screening equipment, personnel for screening, training 
of personnel, and delays. Delays are the largest cost component, 
totaling $7.0 billion over 10 years, undiscounted. In summary, the 
undiscounted 10 year cost of the alternative is $11.1 billion, and 
discounted at 7 percent, the cost is 7.7 billion.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TSA estimates the cost of the rule will be $1.9 billion (discounted at 
7 percent) over 10 years. TSA analyzed the alternative of not 
establishing the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) and, instead, 
having aircraft operators and air carriers perform screening of all 
cargo transported on passenger aircraft. Absent the CCSP, the estimated 
cost to aircraft operators and air carriers is $7.7 billion (discounted 
at seven percent) over ten years. The bulk of the costs for both the 
CCSP and the alternative are attributed to personnel and the impact of 
cargo delays resulting from the addition of a new operational process.


The benefits of the IFR are four fold. First, passenger air carriers 
will be more firmly protected against an act of terrorism or other 
malicious behaviors by the screening of 100 percent of cargo shipped on 
passenger aircraft. Second, allowing the screening process to occur 
throughout the supply chain via the Certified Cargo Screening Program 
will reduce potential bottlenecks and delays at the airports. Third, 
the IFR will allow market forces to identify the most efficient venue 
for screening along the supply chain, as entities upstream from

[[Page 64240]]

the aircraft operator may apply to become CCSFs and screen cargo. 
Finally, validation firms will perform assessments of the entities that 
become CCSFs, allowing TSA to set priorities for compliance 
inspections.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              09/16/09                    74 FR 47672
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/16/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   11/16/09
Final Rule                      11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Robert S. Hyde
Branch Chief, Air Cargo Policy & Plans
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E4-417N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3943
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: [email protected]

Adam Sicking
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-345N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2304
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: [email protected]

Alice Crowe
Sr. Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-320N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2652
Fax: 571 227-1379
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1652-AA64
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




79. CLARIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION, OVERSIGHT, AND 
RECERTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS BY THE STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM 
(SEVP) TO ENROLL F OR M NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1356(m); PL 107-56; PL 107-173


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 214.3; 8 CFR 214.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would clarify the criteria for nonimmigrant academic 
(F visa) and vocational (M visa) students and exchange aliens (J visa) 
to maintain visa status, and for the schools certified by the Student 
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to enroll F or M nonimmigrant 
students to fulfill their recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 
requirements to SEVP. The proposed rule would incorporate significant 
refinements in policy and procedures that have evolved since the last 
major regulatory update in 2002 and since the establishment of SEVP 
nearly 6 years ago. The proposed rule would remove obsolete provisions 
in the regulations used prior to and during implementation of the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information Program (SEVIS). In 
anticipation of the implementation of a major reprogramming of SEVIS, 
referred to as SEVIS II, that will begin in late 2009, the proposed 
rule would incorporate language to support that transition.


Statement of Need:


ICE will publish this proposed rule that will incorporate significant 
refinements in policy and procedures that have evolved since the last 
major regulatory update in 2002, and since the establishment of SEVP 
nearly six years ago. These revisions of 8 CFR 214.1-4 will clarify the 
criteria for F, M and J nonimmigrant status and for schools certified 
by SEVP, update policy and procedure for SEVP, remove obsolete 
provisions and support the implementation of a major reprogramming of 
the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), known as 
``SEVIS II.''


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under development. It is difficult to quantify monetarily the benefits 
of the Clarification of Criteria for Certification, Oversight and 
Recertification of Schools by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP) To Enroll F or M Nonimmigrant Students regulation using standard 
economic accounting techniques. Nonimmigrant students, the schools that 
serve them, and the communities in which they live will benefit from 
the improvements and clarifications to the rules governing the 
certification, oversight, and recertification of schools certified by 
SEVP.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Sharon Snyder
Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Potomac Center North
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024-6121
Phone: 703 603-3415
Related RIN: Related to 1653-AA42
RIN: 1653-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USICE

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




80. CONTINUED DETENTION OF ALIENS SUBJECT TO FINAL ORDERS OF REMOVAL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1231; 8 USC 1253; . . .

[[Page 64241]]

CFR Citation:


8 CFR 241


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalizing, with 
amendments, the interim rule that was published on November 14, 2001, 
by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service). The 
interim rule included procedures for conducting custody determinations 
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 
U.S. 678 (2001), which held that the detention period of certain aliens 
who are subject to a final administrative order of removal is limited 
under section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to 
the period reasonably necessary to effect their removal. The interim 
rule amended section 241.4 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), in addition to creating two new sections: 8 CFR 241.13 
(establishing custody review procedures based on the significant 
likelihood of the alien's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future) 
and 241.14 (establishing custody review procedures for special 
circumstances cases). Subsequently, in the case of Clark v. Martinez, 
543 U.S. 371 (2005), the Supreme Court clarified a question left open 
in Zadvydas, and held that section 241(a)(6) of the Act applies equally 
to all aliens described in that section. This rule amends the interim 
rule to conform to the requirements of Martinez. Further, the 
procedures for custody determinations for post-removal period aliens 
who are subject to an administratively final order of removal, and who 
have not been released from detention or repatriated, have been revised 
in response to comments received and experience gained from 
administration of the interim rule published in 2001. This final rule 
also makes conforming changes as required by the enactment of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). Additonally, certain portions of 
the Final Rule were determined to require public comment and, for this 
reason, have been developed into a separate/companion Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking; RIN 1653-AA60.


Statement of Need:


This rule will improve the post order custody review process in the 
Final Rule related to the Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders 
of Removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas 
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) 
and conforming changes as required by the enactment of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 (HSA). A companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) will amend 8 CFR 241.1(g) to provide for a new 90-day removal 
period once an alien comes into compliance with his or her obligation 
to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents 
and not conspire or act to prevent removal. The NPRM adds new 
subparagraph (iii) to 8 CFR 241.4(g)(1) to provide for a 90-day removal 
period once the alien is taken into custody if at liberty or in another 
agency's custody at the time the removal order becomes administratively 
final and amends 8 CFR 241.13(b)(3) to clarify that aliens who fall 
within the provisions of 236A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226a, are not 
covered by the provisions of 8 CFR 241.13(a) (such alien covered by the 
specific provisions of section 236A).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under development; this rule is not significant for economic reasons.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              11/14/01                    66 FR 56967
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/14/02
Final Action                    05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


INS No. 2156-01


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG29


Agency Contact:
Jason Johnsen
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: 202 732-4245
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1653-AA13
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USICE



81. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND STORAGE OF FORM I-9, EMPLOYMENT 
ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1324a; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations provide that 
employers and recruiters or referrers for a fee required to complete 
and retain Forms I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, may sign and 
retain these forms electronically.


Statement of Need:


This final rule on the Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, 
Employment Eligibility Verification will respond to comments and make 
minor changes to the IFR that was published in 2006.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              06/15/06                    71 FR 34510
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   06/15/06
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/14/06
Final Rule                      02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


ICE 2345-05


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 64242]]

Agency Contact:
Allan Vanscoy
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20025
Phone: 202 732-5798
RIN: 1653-AA47
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USICE



82. EXTENDING PERIOD FOR OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING BY 17 MONTHS FOR 
F-1 NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS WITH STEM DEGREES AND EXPANDING THE CAP-GAP 
RELIEF FOR ALL F-1 STUDENTS WITH PENDING H-1B PETITIONS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1187; 8 USC 1221; 8 USC 
1281 and 1282; 8 USC 1301 to 1305


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Currently, foreign students in F-1 nonimmigrant status who have been 
enrolled on a full-time basis for at least one full academic year in a 
college, university, conservatory, or seminary certified by U.S. 
Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor 
Program (SEVP) are eligible for 12 months of optional practical 
training (OPT) to work for a U.S. employer in a job directly related to 
the student's major area of study. The maximum period of OPT is 29 
months for F-1 students who have completed a science, technology, 
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and accept employment with 
employers enrolled in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' 
(USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program. Employers of F-1 
students with an extension of post-completion OPT authorization must 
report to the student's designated school official (DSO) within 48 
hours after the OPT student has been terminated from, or otherwise 
leaves, his or her employment with that employer prior to end of the 
authorized period of OPT.


The final rule will respond to public comments and may make adjustments 
to the regulations.


Statement of Need:


ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing the Final Optional 
Practical Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to comments on the 
OPT interim final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of 
OPT from 12 months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have 
completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) 
degree and who accept employment with employers who participate in the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment 
verification program.


Alternatives:


DHS is considering several alternatives to the 17-month extension of 
OPT and cap-gap extension, ranging from taking no action to further 
extension for a larger populace. The interim final rule addressed an 
immediate competitive disadvantage faced by U.S. industries and 
ameliorated some of the adverse impacts on the U.S. economy. DHS 
continues to evaluate both quantitative and qualitative alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Based on an estimated 12,000 students per year that will receive an OPT 
extension and an estimated 5,300 employers that will need to enroll in 
E-verify, DHS projects that this rule will cost students approximately 
$1.49 million per year in additional information collection burdens, 
$4,080,000 in fees, and cost employers $1,240,000 to enroll in E-Verify 
and $168,540 per year thereafter to verify the status of new hires. 
However, this rule will increase the availability of qualified workers 
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields; reduce 
delays that place U.S. employers at a disadvantage when recruiting 
foreign job candidates, thereby improving strategic and resource 
planning capabilities; increase the quality of life for participating 
students, and increase the integrity of the student visa program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/08/08                    73 FR 18944
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          06/09/08
Final Rule                      05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.dhs.gov/sevis/

Agency Contact:
Sharon Snyder
Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Potomac Center North
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024-6121
Phone: 703 603-3415
RIN: 1653-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




83. DISASTER ASSISTANCE; FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND 
HOUSEHOLDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5174


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 15, 2002.


Abstract:


This rulemaking implements section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In doing so, the notice 
of proposed rulemaking would propose further revisions to 44 CFR part 
206, subpart D (the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)) and 
remove subpart E (Individual and Family Grant Programs). Among other 
things, it would propose to implement section 686 of the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) to remove the IHP 
subcaps; and PKEMRA section 685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent 
housing construction eligibility. It would revise FEMA's regulations 
related to individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA section 
689; and

[[Page 64243]]

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 rule would propose to implement 
section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance to relocate 
individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residence, to and 
from alternate locations for short- or long-term accommodations.


Statement of Need:


FEMA needs to revise its IHP regulations to reflect lessons learned, 
from Hurricane Katrina and subsequent events, to address comments 
received on the interim regulations, and to implement recent 
legislative changes (i.e. Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 
of 2006). These changes are intended to provide clear information to 
disaster assistance applicants, implement new authorities, and help 
ensure the consistent administration of the Individuals and Households 
Program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


The rule is under development.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The economic analysis for this rule is under development.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/23/02                     67 FR 3412
NPRM Comment Period End         03/11/02
Interim Final Rule              09/30/02                    67 FR 61446
Corrections                     10/09/02                    67 FR 62896
Corrections Effective           10/09/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/15/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          04/15/03
NPRM                            08/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 3067-AD25; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0005


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Julia Chiu
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 212-1100
Fax: 202 212-1002
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1660-AA18
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--FEMA



84. UPDATE OF FEMA'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5121-5207


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would revise the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Public Assistance program regulations. Many of these changes 
reflect amendments made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
Reform Act of 2006 and the Security and Accountability For Every Port 
Act of 2006. The proposed rule also proposes to reflect lessons learned 
from recent events, and propose further substantive and non-substantive 
clarifications and corrections to improve upon the Public Assistance 
regulations. This proposed rule is intended to improve the efficiency 
and consistency of the Public Assistance program, as well as implement 
new statutory authority by expanding Federal assistance, providing for 
precautionary evacuations, improving the Project Worksheet process, 
empowering grantees, and improving State Administrative Plans.


Statement of Need:


The proposed changes implement new statutory authorities and 
incorporate necessary clarifications and corrections to streamline and 
improve the Public Assistance program. Portions of FEMA's Public 
Assistance regulations have become out of date and do not implement all 
of FEMA's available statutory authorities. The current regulations 
inhibit FEMA's ability to clearly articulate its regulatory 
requirements, and the Public Assistance applicants' understanding of 
the program. The proposed changes are intended to improve the 
efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal authority for the changes in this proposed rule is contained 
in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207, as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 701 et seq., the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 901 note, the Local 
Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 Stat. 333, and 
the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, Public 
Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725.


Alternatives:


One alternative is to revise some of the current regulatory 
requirements (such as application deadlines) in addition to 
implementing the amendments made to the Stafford Act by (1) the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) Public law 
109-295, 120 Stat. 1394; 2) the Security and Accountability for Every 
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 
3) the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 
Stat. 333; and 4) the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act 
of 2006 (PETS Act), Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat. Another alternative 
is to expand funding by expanding force account labor cost eligibility 
to Category A Projects (debris removal) as well as Category B Projects 
(emergency protective measures).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule is expected to have economic impacts on the public, 
grantees, subgrantees, and FEMA. The expected benefits are a reduction 
in property damages, societal losses, and losses to local businesses, 
as well as improved efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance 
program. The

[[Page 64244]]

expected cost impact of the proposed rule is mainly the costs to FEMA 
in administering the Public Assistance program of approximately $60 
million per year. Less than $1 million per year is expected to be 
attributed to grantees, and FEMA estimates the rule will have no costs 
added to subgrantees. These costs to FEMA are expected to accrue from 
the inclusion of education to the list of eligible private nonprofit 
critical services; expansion of force account labor cost eligibility; 
the inclusion of durable medical equipment; the evacuation, care, and 
sheltering of pets; as well as providing for precautionary evacuation 
measures. However, most of the proposed changes are not expected to 
result in any additional cost to FEMA or any changes in the eligibility 
of assistance. For example, the proposed rule would provide for 
accelerated Federal assistance and expedited payment of Federal share 
for debris removal. These are expected to improve the agency's ability 
to quickly provide funding to grantees and subgrantees without 
affecting Public Assistance funding amounts.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1660-AA51
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--FEMA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




85. SPECIAL COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5121 to 5207


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule amends FEMA's regulations to implement loan cancellation 
provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (Special CDLs), which 
were provided by FEMA to local governments in the Gulf region following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not automatically cancel 
all Special CDLs, but would establish the procedures and requirements 
for governments who received Special CDLs to apply for cancellation of 
loan obligations as authorized by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' 
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 
2007 (Troop Act). With the passage of the Troop Act, FEMA has the 
discretionary ability to cancel Special CDLs subject to the limitations 
of section 417(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Under section 417 of the 
Stafford Act, FEMA is authorized to cancel a loan if it determines that 
the ``revenues of the local government during the three full fiscal 
year period following the major disaster are insufficient to meet the 
operating budget of the local government, including additional 
disaster-related expenses of a municipal operation character.'' Since 
the cancellation provisions of section 417 of the Stafford Act already 
exist in the Traditional CDL Program regulations at 44 CFR 206.366, and 
section 417 of the Stafford Act provides the basis for cancellation of 
loans under both the Special CDL Program and the Traditional CDL 
Program, FEMA proposed to mirror the Traditional CDL cancellation 
provisions for Special CDLs. This rule will not affect the cancellation 
provisions for the Traditional CDL Program.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to address the needs of the communities 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. This rule would 
provide for the alleviation of financial hardship on those communities 
who can demonstrate that in the three full fiscal years after the 
disaster they have not recovered to the point that their revenues are 
sufficient to meet their operating budget. This rule is needed to help 
those communities recover from that catastrophic disaster by offering 
the potential for relief of an additional financial burden.


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:


FEMA considered creating new and different cancellation application 
requirements for these communities but decided against that method as 
the cancellation authority is the same as the authority for traditional 
CDLs and the regulations currently used to cancel traditional CDLs has 
been in place and working for 19 years. New requirements may be 
confusing, additionally burdensome, or insufficient. FEMA is also 
considering the alternatives proposed by the commenters in drafting the 
final rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The overall impact of this rule is the cost to the applicant to apply 
for the cancellation, as well as the impact on the economy of 
potentially forgiving all Special Community Disaster Loans and any 
related interest and costs. As the total amount of loans approved in 
the SCDL program reached almost $1.3 billion, therefore, the maximum 
total economic impact of this rule is approximately $1.3 billion. 
However, without knowing which communities will apply for cancellation 
and the dollar amount of the loans that will be cancelled, it is 
impossible to predict the amount of the economic impact of this rule 
with any precision. Although the impact of the rule could be spread 
over multiple years as applications are

[[Page 64245]]

received, processed, and loans cancelled, the total economic effect of 
a specific loan cancellation would only occur once, rather than 
annually.


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                            04/03/09                    74 FR 15228
NPRM Comment Period End         06/02/09
Final Rule                      01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


Docket ID FEMA-2005-0051


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1660-AA44
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-S

[[Page 64246]]




DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 highlights the most significant 
regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during 
the upcoming fiscal year. As the federal agency that serves as the 
nation's housing agency, committed to addressing the housing needs of 
Americans, promoting economic and community development, and enforcing 
the nation's fair housing laws, HUD plays a significant role in the 
lives of families and in communities throughout America. The 
Department's program and initiatives help to provide decent, safe, and 
sanitary housing, and create suitable living environments for all 
Americans. HUD expands housing opportunities for Americans by enforcing 
fair housing laws that operate to eliminate housing discrimination. HUD 
also provides housing and other essential support to a wide range of 
individuals and families with special needs, including homeless 
individuals, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
Secretary Donovan has directed that HUD must have a balanced, 
comprehensive national housing policy, one that supports and preserves 
sustainable homeownership, but also provides affordable rental housing, 
with a focus on preservation of developments that are integral to 
sustainability, such as those adjacent to significant transportation 
options, or with great access to jobs. Increasing the availability of 
affordable rental housing provides a means of addressing the increase 
in homelessness.
HUD's Regulatory Plan for FY2010 reflects one step in achieving this 
balanced, comprehensive national housing policy, and is based on major 
legislation recently enacted that supports such a policy.
Priority: Preserving and Expanding Affordable Rental Housing and 
Increasing Homeownership
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) establishes a 
Housing Trust Fund to be administered by HUD, for the purpose of 
providing grants to states to increase and preserve the supply of 
rental housing for extremely low- and very low-income families, 
including homeless families, and to increase homeownership for 
extremely low- and very low-income families. Although the Housing Trust 
Fund supports both increases in rental housing and homeownership, the 
primary focus of the Housing Trust Fund is rental housing for extremely 
low- and very low-income households, since HERA provides that no more 
than 10 percent of each formula allocation may be expended on 
homeownership.
HERA charges HUD to establish, through regulation, the formula for 
distribution of Housing Trust Fund grants to states. HERA specifies 
that only certain factors are to be part of the formula, and it 
designates certain factors as priority factors. In addition to the 
charge to establish a formula by rule, the statute also directs HUD to 
issue regulations to carry out the statutory requirements applicable to 
use of Housing Trust Fund grants. Eligible trust fund activities 
include production, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing for 
rental housing and homeownership through new construction, acquisition, 
and acquisition and rehabilitation.
Regulatory Action: Housing Trust Fund - Allocation Formula and Program 
Requirements
HUD will issue two rules, as provided by statute. The first rule will 
address the formula by which Housing Trust Fund grant will be allocated 
to the states. The second rule will provide for implementation of the 
program requirements. Both rules will provide the opportunity for 
public comment. The Housing Trust Fund represents a bipartisan 
enactment of possibly the most significant new federal housing 
production program since the creation of the HOME Investment 
Partnerships program in 1990. Capitalization of this fund through 
appropriations and regulatory implementation will constitute a major 
step toward increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Priority: Expanding Affordable Housing by Building Upon Success
The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, authorized by the 
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act, is the largest 
federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively 
to create affordable housing for low-income households. Each year, the 
HOME program allocates approximately $2 billion among the states and 
hundreds of localities nationwide. The program was designed to 
reinforce several important values and principles of community 
development, including empowering people and communities to design and 
implement strategies tailored to their own needs and priorities; 
emphasizing the importance of consolidated planning, which expands and 
strengthens partnerships among all levels of government and the private 
sector in the development of affordable housing; and, through matching 
funds, mobilizing community resources in support of affordable housing. 
HOME is a highly successful program through which nearly 912,000 
affordable housing units for low- and very low-income households have 
been provided since 1992.
Regulatory Action: HOME Investment Partnerships - Improving Performance 
and Accountability; Updating Property Standards and Instituting Energy 
Efficiency Standards
The Department will publish significant proposed amendments to the HOME 
Program regulations. These regulations were last revised in 1996. This 
proposed rule would establish new performance standards for the use of 
HOME program funds, including establishing expeditious but responsible 
use of funds to provide new affordable housing opportunities, and would 
ensure that future HOME units are energy efficient and incorporate 
green building techniques.
Priority: Housing the Homelessness
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act 
of 2009 (HEARTH Act) was enacted on May 20, 2009. The HEARTH Act 
reauthorizes the homeless assistance programs administered by HUD under 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and consolidates these 
programs into a single grant program. The consolidated program, which 
consists of an Emergency Solutions Grant program, a Continuum of Care 
program, and a Rural Housing Stability program, is designed to ensure 
that the range of needs of homeless persons continue to be addressed 
while providing for consolidated application and administration to ease 
administrative burden and improve coordination among providers and, 
consequently, increase the effectiveness of responding to the needs of 
homeless persons.
In addition to consolidating HUD's Supportive Housing Program, Shelter 
Plus Care, and the Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy 
Program into a single Continuum of Care program, key features of the 
HEARTH Act include: revising HUD's definition of homelessness by 
including people at imminent risk of losing their

[[Page 64247]]

housing, as well as families or youth who live in precarious situations 
and are unlikely to become stable; establishing the Rural Housing 
Stability Assistance Program, which provides rural communities with 
greater flexibility in using homeless assistance funds to address the 
needs of homeless people or those in the worst housing situations in 
their communities; authorizing that up to 20 percent of funds may be 
used to prevent homelessness or rapidly re-house people who become 
homeless through the new Emergency Solution Grants; and codifying HUD's 
Continuum of Care process, established administratively by HUD in 1995.
Regulatory Action: Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition 
to Housing Program; Consolidation of HUD Homeless Assistance Programs
The HEARTH Act directs HUD to implement this program through 
rulemaking. HUD will issue two rules to implement this new program. The 
definition of homelessness, which is key to ensuring that the goals and 
objectives of the new statute are met, will be issued first as a 
separate rule for comment. HUD will follow this single issue rule with 
a larger rule that provides for HUD's implementation of the program 
requirements. The funding for this new program and HUD's implementation 
through rulemaking, as directed by statute, will provide communities 
with new resources and better tools to prevent and end homelessness.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its 
best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be made 
effective in calendar year 2010. HUD expects that the neither the total 
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million. 
HUD anticipates that, over the next twelve months, only one rule 
included in its Regulatory Plan, the Housing Trust Fund will have an 
economically significant impact. HUD's choice of an allocation formula 
has an impact on the distribution of over $100 million of transfers. 
The two additional rules on the Regulatory Plan are not anticipated to 
have an economically significant impact. HUD believes that the HOME 
Investment Partnerships will impose only minor costs in the form 
performance standards and economically insignificant benefits in the 
form of energy savings. The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid 
Transition to Housing Program will lead to greater efficiency in the 
administration of housing assistance programs, but these savings are 
not expected to be economically significant.
The Priority Regulations That Comprise HUD's FY 2010 Regulatory Plan
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
HUD's FY 2010 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




86. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS--IMPROVING PERFORMANCE AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY; UPDATING PROPERTY STANDARDS AND INSTITUTING ENERGY 
EFFICIENCY STANDARDS (FR-5234)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 12701 to 12839; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 92


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 
authorized the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, an 
affordable housing block grant under which funds are allocated to 
states and units of local government by formula. The program has been 
funded each year since 1992. The program operated under a series of 
interim rules until 1996, when a final rule was promulgated. This rule 
would amend HOME regulations to implement performance standards and 
require more timely housing production. It would also update the 
property standards to incorporate green building techniques and energy-
efficiency standards for HOME-assisted units.


Statement of Need:


The Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act notes that there 
is critical need to increase the supply of decent, safe, and sanitary 
housing for all Americans, particularly among low-income families. HOME 
funds may be used for a variety of housing activities, including rental 
assistance, housing rehabilitation, assistance to homebuyers, new 
construction, and to support states and units of local government 
implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership 
and affordable housing opportunities. The HOME program is now in its 
18th year of funding. This rulemaking is needed to move the program 
forward by providing greater clarity, establishing and improving 
performance standards, and providing participating jurisdictions with 
the tools they need to address troubled projects. The rule would update 
builder standards for HOME-assisted facilities to incorporate energy 
efficiency and green building standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 
authorizes funding to participating jurisdictions for various housing 
purposes, including strengthening public-private partnerships to 
increase the supply of affordable housing, including homeownership. The 
goals of the program include expanding the supply of decent, safe, 
sanitary, and affordable housing, primarily for very low-income and 
low-income Americans and to strengthen the abilities of states and 
units of local government to design and implement local strategies for 
achieving an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable 
housing.


Alternatives:


These changes can be implemented only by regulatory amendment. Other 
options considered included maintaining the status quo. However, after 
eleven years of experience under the currently codified rule, HUD has 
identified a need to increase accountability with respect to 
performance. Moreover, to ensure that these performance standards are 
effective, the program will need clear regulatory requirements to base 
an action against a grantee. The rule would reflect these policy goals.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


No increased costs are anticipated as a result of the changes related 
to performance standards. There may be some incremental costs 
associated with the imposition of green building technologies and 
energy-efficiency measures. However, those costs will be offset by 
lower operating costs for

[[Page 64248]]

energy-efficient housing and increased affordability for low- and very 
low-income families.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Virginia Sardone
Deputy Director, Office of Community Planning and Development, Office 
of Affordable Housing Programs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD, 451 7th St SW
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 708-2470
RIN: 2501-AC94
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




87. HOUSING TRUST FUND PROGRAM--ALLOCATION FORMULA AND PROGRAM 
REQUIREMENTS (FR-5246)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 4568; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 93


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 30, 2009, Regulations describing Formula 
Distribution; however, funds are not available to or appropriated for 
the Housing Trust Fund.


Abstract:


The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) establishes a 
Housing Trust Fund. Section 1338 of HERA directs HUD to establish and 
manage a Housing Trust Fund, which is to be funded with amounts 
allocated by the government-sponsored enterprises or by any amounts 
that may be appropriated, transferred, or credited to the Housing Trust 
Fund under any other provision of law. The purpose of the Housing Trust 
Fund is to provide grants to states for use to: (1) increase and 
preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low- and very low-
income families, including homeless families; and (2) increase 
homeownership for extremely low- and very low-income families. The 
primary focus of the Housing Trust Fund is rental housing for extremely 
low- and very low-income households. HERA provides that no more than 10 
percent of each formula allocation may be expended on homeownership.


HERA charges HUD to establish, by July 2009, and, through regulation, 
the formula for the distribution of the Housing Trust Fund grants to 
states, and to follow that rule with one that implements the Housing 
Trust Fund program requirements.


Statement of Need:


In enacting Housing Trust Fund legislation, Congress determined that 
the national housing policy of the past several years was overly 
focused on homeownership and did not provide adequate attention to the 
need of renters and the need for affordable rental housing. The Housing 
Trust Fund legislation, as signed into law, provides increased 
resources to be directed to the preservation and expansion of 
affordable rental housing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The rules implementing the Housing Trust Fund formula allocation and 
establishing the program requirements are mandated by HERA.


Alternatives:


HERA requires implementation of both the formula and the program 
requirements by regulation. Accordingly, this rule fulfills a statutory 
mandate to proceed with rulemaking to codify the policies and 
procedures governing the HTF. The prescriptive statutory language of 
HERA limits the policy options considered by HUD. Areas in which the 
statute provides some discretion and the Department is considering 
alternatives include: (1) the contents of the statutorily mandated 
allocation plans to be submitted by states and state designated 
entities; (2) the eligible activities that may be carried out with HTF 
funds; and (3) appropriate benchmarks and performance goals for the use 
of HTF funds.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The benefit of this program is the increase in affordable rental 
housing, which will present savings to low-income and very low-income 
individuals with respect to amount of income they spend on housing, and 
contribution to the prevention of homelessness, which has increased as 
the unemployment rate has risen. The economic impact of the Housing 
Trust Fund consists of a transfer from the taxpayer, through State 
governments, to extremely low- and very low-income families. By 
expanding and preserving the supply of housing and lowering financial 
barriers to homeownership, the Housing Trust Fund will reduce the 
housing costs of extremely low- and very low-income families, and thus 
raise the consumer surplus of the program's beneficiaries.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Marcia Sigal
Director, Program Policy Division, Office of Affordable Housing 
Programs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
HUD, 451 7th St. Street
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 708-2470
Fax: 202 708-1744
RIN: 2506-AC23

[[Page 64249]]

_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--CPD



88.  HOMELESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AND RAPID TRANSITION TO 
HOUSING PROGRAM; CONSOLIDATION OF HUD HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (FR-
5333)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 11371 et seq.; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 577 to 579


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 20, 2010, Regulations governing operation of 
programs created or affected by HEARTH Act of 2009.


Abstract:


The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act 
of 2009 (HEARTH Act) reauthorizes the homeless assistance programs 
administered by HUD under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 
and consolidates these programs into a single grant program. The 
consolidated program, which consists of an Emergency Solutions Grant 
Program, a Continuum of Care Program, and a Rural Housing Stability 
Program, is designed to ensure that the range of needs of homeless 
persons continue to be addressed, but provides for consolidated grant 
application and administration to ease administrative burden and 
improve coordination among providers and, consequently, increase the 
effectiveness of responses to the needs of homeless persons.


HUD will issue two rules to implement this new program. One rule will 
solely address the definitions of ``homeless,'' ``homeless 
individual,'' and ``homeless person,'' the meaning of which are 
essential to the coverage provided by this program. The second rule 
will establish the regulatory framework to implement the program.


Statement of Need:


These rules are needed to fully implement the Homeless Emergency 
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). 
The HEARTH Act requires that HUD issue implementing regulations 
governing the operations of the programs it creates or modifies by no 
later than twelve months after the date of enactment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The rules implementing the consolidated McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance programs are mandated by the HEARTH Act.


Alternatives:


The HEARTH Act requires implementation of the program by rulemaking. 
Accordingly, this rule will assist in meeting the statutory mandate to 
proceed with rulemaking to codify the policies and procedures governing 
the HEARTH Act. The prescriptive statutory language of the HEARTH Act 
limits policy options available; however, HUD is considering options 
where the HEARTH Act provides discretion including: (1) determining the 
appropriate remedial action to ensure the fair distribution of 
assistance for geographic areas that do not meet the requirements for 
funding or where there is no collaborative applicant for a geographic 
area, and (2) establishing the dates by which the recipient or project 
sponsor must expend grants for a homeless assistance.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The consolidated homeless assistance program authorized by the HEARTH 
Act is designed to more rapidly respond to the needs of the homeless 
and, therefore, prevent homelessness and, initially, prevent the rise 
in the number of homeless persons.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ann Marie Oliva
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Program
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
HUD, 451 7th St. Street
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 402-4497
RIN: 2506-AC26
BILLING CODE 4210-67-S

[[Page 64250]]




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 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, 548 wildlife refuges, and 
approximately 1.7 billion of submerged offshore acres. This includes 
some of the highest quality renewable energy resources available to 
help the United States achieve the President's goal of energy 
independence, including geothermal, solar, and wind. On March 30, 2009, 
President Barack Obama signed into law the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009. The Act Congressionally established the Bureau 
of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The 
new law brings into NLCS nearly 928,000 acres of wilderness, one 
national monument, four conservation areas, 363 miles of wild and 
scenic rivers, and 40 miles of national scenic trails.
The Department protects and recovers endangered species; protects 
natural, historic, and cultural resources; manages water projects that 
are a life line and economic engine for many communities in the West; 
manages forests and fights wildfires; manages Federal energy resources; 
educates children in Indian schools; and provides recreational 
opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in our national 
parks, public lands, national wildlife refuges, and recreation areas.
We will continue to review and update our regulations and policies to 
ensure that they are effective and efficient, and that they promote 
accountability and sustainability. We will emphasize regulations and 
policies that:
 Promote environmentally responsible and balanced development 
            of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands 
            and the Outer Continental Shelf;
 Use the best available science to ensure that public resources 
            are protected, conserved, and used wisely;
 Adopt performance approaches focused on achieving cost-
            effective, timely results;
 Improve the nation-to-nation relationship with American Indian 
            tribes;
 Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, 
            other groups, and individuals to achieve common goals;
 Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the 
            highest ethical standards while maintaining performance 
            goals.
Major Regulatory Areas
DOI bureaus implement legislatively mandated programs through their 
regulations. Some of these regulatory activities include:
 Developing onshore and offshore energy, including renewable 
            energy, minerals, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
 Managing migratory birds and preservation of certain marine 
            mammals and endangered species;
 Managing dedicated lands, such as national parks, wildlife 
            refuges, NLCS lands, and American Indian trust lands;
 Managing public lands open to multiple use;
 Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal minerals;
 Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indians;
 Managing natural resource damage assessments; and
 Managing assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
How DOI Regulatory priorities support the President's energy, resource 
management, environmental sustainability, and economic recovery goals
Within the requirements and guidance in various Executive Orders, DOI's 
regulatory programs seek to operate programs transparently, 
efficiently, and cooperatively while maximizing protection of our land, 
resources, and environment in a fiscally responsible way by:
(1) Protecting Natural, Cultural and Heritage 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. Our 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.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wildlife Program continues to focus 
on maintenance and management of wildlife habitat to help ensure self-
sustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of 
wildlife resources on public lands. BLM-managed lands are vital to game 
species and hundreds of species of non-game mammals, reptiles, and 
amphibians. In order to provide for long-term protection of wildlife 
resources, especially given other mandated land use requirements, the 
Wildlife Program supports aggressive habitat conservation and 
restoration activities, many funded by partnerships with Federal, 
State, and non-governmental organizations. For instance, the Wildlife 
Program is restoring wildlife habitat across a multi-state region to 
support species that depend upon sagebrush vegetation. Projects are 
tailored to address regional issues such as fire (as in the western 
portion of the sagebrush biome) or habitat degradation and loss (as in 
the eastern portion of the sagebrush biome). Additionally, BLM 
undertakes habitat improvement projects in partnership with a variety 
of stakeholders and consistent with State fish and game wildlife action 
plans and local working group plans.
The National Park Service (NPS) is working with BLM and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize a rule to implement Public Law 
106-206, which directs the Secretary to establish a system of location 
fees for commercial filming and still photography activities on public 
lands. While commercial filming and still photography are generally 
allowed on Federal lands, managing this activity through a permitting 
process will minimize damage to cultural or natural resources and 
interference with other visitors to the area. This regulation would 
standardize the collection of location fees by DOI agencies.
In 2007, the National Park Service developed a new winter use 
regulation for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John 
D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. This 2007 regulation replaced an 
interim rule that expired at the end of the 2006-2007 winter season. It 
established an average daily entrance limit of 540 snowmobiles

[[Page 64251]]

(compared to 720 under the interim rule), continued the limit of 10 
snowmobiles for groups and guided tours, and established daily limits 
on snow coach entrances to the park. As required by court orders, NPS 
has reinstated the old interim rule pending development of an 
acceptable new rule to take its place. As the first steps toward 
developing this new rule, NPS published a proposed rule on November 5, 
2008, and reopened comment on this rule on July 24, 2009. The Service 
intends to issue a final rule that will remain in effect through the 
2010-2011 winter season and will allow 318 snowmobiles and 78 snow 
coaches per day.
In 2008, in consultation with an interagency work group, NPS began 
developing a proposed rule to provide more efficient and cost-effective 
management of federally owned archeological collections. At present, 
there is no legal procedure to deaccession items in Federal collections 
that are of ``insufficient archeological interest,'' i.e., they are of 
no further value to the science of archaeology, or to the integrity of 
the collection in which they are contained. This rule would free up 
space in collections and allow custodians to allocate more time and 
effort to care of remaining items. To ensure proper disposition of 
those archaeological items, the regulation contains:
 Criteria to determine when material remains are of 
            insufficient archeological interest and may be disposed;
 Appropriate methods by which to dispose of archeological 
            material remains in priority order;
 Conditions that must be met in order to determine that if 
            disposal is appropriate;
 Procedures to notify concerned parties and solicit comments 
            regarding a proposed disposition;
 A requirement to publish in the Federal Register the 
            disposition determination and a process to dispute it; and
 Documentary requirements for full accountability of the 
            disposition.
The rule also requires assignment of a specific individual to be 
accountable for proper disposition. The rule is now undergoing final 
review and should be ready for publication in early 2010.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources.
BLM has identified a total of approximately 20.6 million acres of 
public land with wind energy potential in the 11 western states and 
approximately 29.5 million acres with solar energy potential in the six 
southwestern states. There are over 140 million acres of public land in 
western states and Alaska with geothermal resource potential. There is 
also significant wind and wave potential in our offshore waters. The 
National Renewable Energy Lab, a Department of Energy national 
laboratory, has identified more than 1,000 gigawatts of wind potential 
off the Atlantic coast - roughly equivalent to the Nation's existing 
installed electric generating capacity - and more than 900 gigawatts of 
wind potential off the Pacific Coast. Due to the extent and 
distribution of public lands, the Department has an important role, in 
consultation with relevant Federal, State, regional, and local 
authorities, in siting new transmission lines needed to bring renewable 
energy assets to load centers.
Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department has 
focused on renewable energy issues and has established priorities for 
environmentally responsible development of renewable energy on our 
public lands and the outer continental shelf. Industry has started to 
respond by investing in development of wind farms off the Atlantic 
seacoast, solar facilities in the southwest, and geothermal energy 
projects throughout the west. Power generation from these new energy 
sources produces virtually no greenhouse gases and, when done in an 
environmentally sensitive manner, harnesses with minimum impact 
abundant renewable energy that nature itself provides.
On March 11, 2009, the Secretary issued his first Secretarial Order 
that made facilitating the production, development, and delivery of 
renewable energy on public lands and the OCS top priorities at the 
Department. These goals will be accomplished in a manner that does not 
ignore, but instead protects, our signature landscapes, natural 
resources, wildlife, and cultural resources, and works in close 
collaboration with all relevant Federal, state, Tribal and other 
agencies. The order also established an energy and climate change task 
force within the Department, drawing from the leadership of each of the 
bureaus. The task force is responsible for, among other things, 
quantifying the potential contributions of renewable energy resources 
on our public lands and the OCS and identifying and prioritizing 
specific ``zones'' on our public lands where the Department can 
facilitate a rapid and responsible move to significantly increase 
production of renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, and 
biomass sources, and incremental or small hydroelectric power on 
existing structures.
On April 29, 2009, the Minerals Management Service published a final 
rule to establish a program to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-
way for renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 
These regulations will ensure the orderly, safe, and environmentally 
responsible development of renewable energy sources on the OCS.
(3) Empowering People and Communities.
The Department encourages public participation in the regulatory 
process by seeking public input on a variety of regulatory issues. For 
example, every year FWS establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in 
partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and wildlife 
agencies. FWS also 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.
The National Park Service has begun revising its rules on non-Federal 
development of gas and oil in units of the National Park System. Of the 
approximately 700 gas and oil wells in 13 NPS units, 55 per cent, or 
385 wells, are exempt from current regulations. In order to improve 
protection of NPS resources, and bring those 385 wells under the 
regulatory umbrella, revision of the regulation is necessary. NPS is 
encouraging public input into designing the rule by publishing an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Interested members of the public 
will be able to make suggestions on the content of the regulation, 
which NPS will consider in writing the proposed rule. After developing 
a proposed rule, NPS will solicit further public comment. Publishing an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking should result in a regulation 
that will minimize impacts from drilling, improve operating standards 
for oil and gas operations, and allow recovery of administrative costs.

[[Page 64252]]

Accountability and Sustainability Through Regulatory Efficiency
We are using the regulatory process to improve results while easing 
regulatory burdens. For instance, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
allows for delisting threatened and endangered species if they no 
longer need the protection of the ESA. We are working to identify 
species for which delisting or downlisting (reclassification from 
endangered to threatened) may be appropriate.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has found that making listing decisions 
under the Endangered Species Act in Hawaii on a traditional, species-
by-species basis is inefficient, since very similar information and 
analysis would be repeated in each rule. To improve efficiency, FWS has 
taken an approach that includes consideration of 48 species in one 
regulatory package. This allows the Service to address the existing 
backlog of candidate species more quickly. Most candidate species on 
the Hawaiian Islands face nearly identical threats and are only found 
in the few remaining native-dominated ecological communities. The 
impacts of these threats are well understood at the community level, 
while their impacts to the individual candidate species are relatively 
less studied. Because this approach focuses on conserving the key 
physical and biological components of native communities and 
ecosystems, it may preclude the need to list additional species found 
in the same ecological communities. Recovery plans developed in 
response to the Kauai listing will focus conservation efforts on 
protection and restoration of ecosystem processes, allowing us to more 
efficiently address common threats in the most important areas.
DOI bureaus work to make our regulations easier to comply with and 
understand. 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. Results include:
 Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way that 
            is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
 Increased benefits per dollar spent by carefully evaluating 
            the economic effects of planned rules; and
 Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain language 
            in our regulations and guidance documents.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers and manages 56 million 
acres of land held in trust by the United States for Indians and Indian 
tribes, providing services to approximately 1.9 million Indians and 
Alaska Natives, and maintaining a government-to-government relationship 
with the 564 federally recognized Indian tribes. BIA's mission is to 
``... enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and 
to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets 
of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives,'' as well as to 
provide quality education opportunities to students in Indian schools.
In fiscal year 2010, BIA will continue its regulatory focus on improved 
management of trust responsibilities and promotion of economic 
development in Indian communities. In addition, we will focus on 
updating Indian education regulations and on other regulatory changes 
to increase transparency in support of the President's Open Government 
Initiative.
With the input of tribal leaders, individual Indian beneficiaries, and 
other subject matter experts, BIA has been examining ways to better 
serve its beneficiaries. The American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 
(AIPRA) made clear that regulatory changes were necessary to update the 
manner in which we meet our trust management responsibilities. We have 
promulgated regulations implementing the probate-related provisions of 
AIPRA and will now focus on regulations to implement other AIPRA 
provisions related to managing Indian land.
The focus on promoting economic development in Indian communities, 
including development of renewable and conventional energy resources on 
tribal lands, is a core component of BIA's mission. Economic 
development initiatives can attract businesses to Indian communities 
and fund services that support the health and well-being of tribal 
members. By providing the tools necessary to promote economic 
development, economic development can enable tribes to attain self-
sufficiency, strengthen their governments, and reduce crime.
Indian education is a top priority of the Assistant Secretary - Indian 
Affairs. For this reason, we will review Indian education regulations 
to ensure that they adequately support efforts to provide students of 
BIA-funded schools with the best education possible.
Finally, BIA's regulatory focus on increasing transparency implements 
the President's Open Government Initiative. We will ensure that all 
regulations that we draft or revise meet high standards of readability, 
and accurately and clearly describe BIA processes.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 256 million acres of public 
lands, located primarily in the western states and Alaska, and the 700-
million-acre subsurface mineral estate located throughout the Nation. 
Our complex mission to manage public lands for multiple uses means that 
we affect not only the many Americans who live near or visit public 
lands, but also millions more who benefit from minerals, energy, and 
timber produced from the lands' rich resources.
In carrying out our mission, we conserve natural and cultural resources 
and sustain the health and productivity of our public lands for the use 
and enjoyment of present and future generations. We manage such varied 
uses as energy and mineral development, outdoor recreation, livestock 
grazing, and forestry and woodlands products. In 2010 we will celebrate 
the tenth anniversary of the National Landscape Conservation System 
(NLCS), created to highlight the conservation side of our multiple-use 
mandate. Earlier this year, Congress, by passing the Omnibus Public 
Land Management Act (P.L. 111-11), affirmed its support of the NLCS in 
statute and added 929,000 acres of wilderness, one national monument, 
four national conservation areas, 363 miles of wild and scenic rivers, 
and 40 miles of national scenic and historic trails to the NLCS. There 
are now more than 880 NLCS treasured landscapes spanning the Nation 
from Florida to Alaska.
The diverse public lands managed by BLM contain vast potential for 
developing renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and 
geothermal energy, as well as oil, gas, coal, and timber. We are 
analyzing proposals with the goal of increasing renewable energy 
development on public lands. We are also establishing transmission 
corridors to move renewable energy from production sites to market, and 
have taken a significant step in this direction by designating more 
than 5,000 miles of energy transport corridors as west-wide energy 
corridors. The next step is authorizing rights-of-way across public 
lands.
We have identified several emphasis areas to help explain our 
regulatory

[[Page 64253]]

priorities. The narrative below describes these emphasis areas and 
explains their relationship with the Secretary of the Interior's 
priorities in the areas of energy independence, treasured landscapes, 
and Native American issues.
(1) Energy Independence
The quality of life that Americans enjoy today depends upon a stable 
and abundant supply of affordable energy. Because BLM manages more 
Federal land than any other agency -- 256 million surface acres and 700 
million sub-surface acres of mineral estate - we play a key role in 
ensuring that our country's energy needs are met by managing both 
renewable and non-renewable sources. We do this in an environmentally 
balanced and fiscally sound way that protects our natural resources and 
critical wildlife habitat for such species as the sage grouse and lynx.
(2) Treasured Landscapes
Protecting the landscape means moving toward a holistic, landscape-
level approach to managing multiple public land uses. To implement this 
approach, we work with partners interested in working on a broader 
scale across jurisdictional lines to achieve a common landscape vision. 
Our focus on restoring healthy landscapes includes:
 Reducing the number of wild horses and burros on the public 
            lands, particularly in areas most affected by drought and 
            wildfire. Maintaining the wild horse and burro population 
            at appropriate levels is critical to conserving forage 
            resources that sustain native wildlife and livestock.
 Restoring habitat for sensitive, rare, threatened, and 
            endangered species, such as the sage grouse, desert 
            tortoise, and salmon.
 Supporting greater biodiversity through noxious weed and 
            invasive species control to allow native plants to thrive.
 Improving water quality by restoring riparian areas and 
            protecting watersheds. Enhanced water quality aids in 
            restoring habitat for fish and other aquatic and riparian 
            species.
 Conducting post-fire recovery efforts to promote healthy 
            landscapes and to discourage the spread of invasive 
            species.
(3) Native American Issues
BLM consults with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis, 
and we are comprehensively assessing and improving our tribal 
consultation practices. In August 2008, the BLM Director wrote to more 
than 600 tribal leaders asking about their experiences with BLM and 
their ideas on how we could improve our working relationship. We then 
held a follow-up listening session in Anchorage to coincide with the 
Alaska Federation of Natives Conference. We received many valuable 
comments at this session, which led to additional listening sessions in 
May through August 2009.
One area of concern relates to the Native America Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which addresses the rights of Indian Tribes 
and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain human remains and objects 
of cultural patrimony. To comply with NAGPRA, we are inventorying and 
repatriating human remains and other cultural items in BLM museum 
collections. We are also consulting with Indian tribes on actions to 
take when human remains and cultural items subject to NAGPRA are 
discovered or excavated on public lands.
We also work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Minerals 
Management Service to help Indian tribes and individual allottees 
develop their solid and fluid mineral resources. We are responsible for 
protecting, developing, measuring, inspecting, and enforcing extraction 
operations of the mineral estate on properties held in trust for Native 
Americans.
BLM's Regulatory Priorities
Our regulatory focus is directed primarily by the priorities of the 
President and Congress. These priorities include;
 Facilitating balanced domestic production of various sources 
            of energy, including oil and gas, 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 varied 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 BLM-managed 
            public lands and providing them with quality service;
 Securing the recovery of a fair return for using publicly 
            owned resources and avoiding 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.
In developing regulations, we strive to ensure communication, 
coordination, and consultation with the public, including affected 
interests, tribes, and other stakeholders. We also work to draft 
regulations that are clearly written and easy for the public to 
understand.
For the coming year, our specific regulatory goals include:
(1) Revising onshore oil and gas operating standards
BLM expects to revise existing onshore oil and gas operating orders and 
propose a new order. Onshore orders establish requirements, minimum 
standards, and standard operating procedures. They are binding on 
Federal and Indian (except Osage) oil and gas leases and on all wells 
and facilities on State or private lands covered by Federal agreements. 
In order to determine the proper royalty that a lessee must pay, BLM 
ensures that oil and gas is accurately measured for quantity and 
quality. To ensure that proper royalties are paid on oil and gas 
removed from Federal and trust lands, we plan to:
 Revise existing Onshore Orders Numbers 3, 4, and 5 to use new 
            industry standards that reflect current operating 
            procedures and to require consistent use of proper 
            verification and accounting.
 Propose new Onshore Order Number 9 to cover waste prevention 
            and beneficial use.
(2) Revising coal management regulations
BLM plans to publish a proposed rule that would amend the coal 
management regulations governing Federal coal leases and logical mining 
units. The rule would implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act 
regarding administration of coal leases and clarify the royalty rate 
for continuous highwall mining, a new coal mining method used on some 
Federal coal leases.
(3) Publishing rules on paleontological resources preservation
The recently enacted omnibus public lands law included provisions on 
permits for collecting paleontological resources. BLM and the Park 
Service are co-leads of a team with the Forest Service that will be 
drafting a

[[Page 64254]]

paleontological resources rule. The rule would address the protection 
of paleontological resources and how we would permit the collection of 
these resources. The rule would also address other issues such as the 
administration of permits, causal collection of rocks and minerals, 
hobby collection of common invertebrate plants and fossils, and the 
civil and criminal penalties for violation of these rules.
(4) Revising timber sale contract extension regulations
We plan to amend the forest product disposal regulations governing 
forest product contracts. BLM regulations currently allow timber sale 
contract extensions under very limited circumstances and do not allow 
extensions for ``market fluctuations.'' Nor do they allow any reduction 
of contract value due to declines in the lumber market. The recent 
decline in the housing industry has resulted in a record decline in the 
timber market, leaving many purchasers of BLM timber sale contracts 
without a reasonable market in which to sell harvested timber. The 
revised rule would allow us to extend contracts under specified 
circumstances and provide more options to help maintain the logging and 
sawmilling infrastructure needed to manage the 66 million acres of 
publicly owned timber and woodland resources.
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) collects, accounts for and 
disburses more than $13 billion per year in revenues from Federal 
offshore energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on 
Federal and Indian lands. The program is national in scope and has two 
major responsibilities. The first is timely and accurate collection, 
distribution, and accounting for revenues associated with mineral and 
energy production. The second is management and stewardship of the 
resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in a manner that 
provides for safety, protection of the environment, and conservation of 
valuable natural resources. MMS carries out these broad 
responsibilities under authority 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.
In 2009, MMS completed a major milestone by developing and codifying 
the regulatory framework for renewable energy projects on the OCS. We 
are now beginning to implement the regulatory provisions for developing 
the Nation's offshore wind, wave, and ocean current resources in a safe 
and environmentally sound manner. Using cost-effective, targeted 
regulatory authority, we continue efforts to improve both the safety 
record and environmental protection of all production operations while 
ensuring fair value to the Federal Government, Indian Tribes, and 
taxpayers.
Our regulatory focus for fiscal year 2010 is directed by Presidential 
and legislative priorities that emphasize contributing to America's 
energy supply, protecting the environment, and ensuring a fair return 
for taxpayers for energy production from Federal and Indian lands.
Our regulatory priorities are to:
 Continue to meet our Indian trust responsibilities
We have a trust responsibility to accurately collect and disburse oil 
and gas royalties on Indian lands. MMS will increase royalty certainty 
by addressing oil valuation for Indian lands through a rulemaking 
process involving key stakeholders.
 Determine the proper value of coal for advanced royalty 
            purposes
Implementing requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, these 
regulations will provide clarification by redesignating and amending a 
BLM coal valuation directive. The rule will provide a needed 
alternative method to determine the value of coal for advanced royalty 
purposes.
 Update pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way regulations
We expect to publish a final rule revising the Outer Continental Shelf 
pipeline and pipeline rights-of-way regulations. This revised rule will 
reflect current industry practices and MMS policies for safe operations 
of pipelines on the OCS.
 Update Oil and Gas Production Requirements
The final rule revises requirements for oil and gas production rates, 
venting and flaring natural gas, and burning oil. The rule, which also 
adds a requirement to measure flared or vented gas at high volume oil 
production facilities, is expected to publish in FY 2010.
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.'' Title V of SMCRA sets minimum 
requirements for obtaining a permit for surface coal mining operations, 
sets performance standards for those operations, requires land 
reclamation once mining ends, and requires enforcement to ensure that 
the standards are met. Under SMCRA and later amendments we are the 
primary enforcer of the Act's provisions until a State or Indian tribe 
achieves ``primacy'' by demonstrating that its regulatory program meets 
all of the specifications in the Act and is consistent with OSM 
regulations.
When a primacy State or Indian tribe takes over permitting, inspection, 
and enforcement activities under its federally approved regulatory 
program, our role is to regulate mining activities and oversee and 
evaluate the State or tribal program. Today, 24 of the 26 coal-
producing States have primacy. In return for assuming primacy, States 
are entitled to regulatory grants and abandoned mine lands grants under 
their abandoned mine lands programs. In addition, under cooperative 
agreements, some primacy States have agreed to regulate mining on 
Federal lands within their borders. In 2006, amendments to SMCRA 
allowed Indian tribes with coal resources to assume primacy. No tribes 
have done so to date, although three tribes have expressed an interest 
in submitting a tribal program.
In summary, OSM regulates mining directly only in non-primacy States, 
on Federal lands in States where no cooperative agreements are in 
effect, and on Indian lands when the tribe does not have primacy.
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 how 
the program is being implemented 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.

[[Page 64255]]

OSM's major regulatory priorities for the coming year are to:
 Address issues resulting from the publication of the excess 
            spoil/stream buffer zone rule in December 2008
The publication of the excess spoil/stream buffer zone rule on December 
12, 2008, has raised serious concerns about damage to the environment 
and has resulted in litigation. We intend to review those concerns and 
will initiate new rulemaking to address the issues raised.
 Issue regulations establishing enforceable Federal standards 
            for the placement of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs) in 
            active and abandoned mines
We intend to publish proposed and final regulations establishing permit 
application requirements and performance standards for the placement of 
CCBs on coal mining sites. The requirements will apply to active mining 
sites with permits for surface coal mining operations under Title V of 
SMCRA and to abandoned mine sites being reclaimed under Title IV of 
SMCRA. The rule will be designed to ensure that mining operations or 
reclamation projects where CCBs are placed incorporate adequate 
protections to safeguard the public and the environment. The proposed 
regulations will be based upon existing SMCRA authorities. Our decision 
to initiate rulemaking is the result of a study conducted by the 
National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, which 
recommended the establishment of enforceable Federal standards for the 
placement of CCBs on mine sites.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 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. FWS 
also helps ensure a healthy environment for people by providing 
opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our shared 
natural heritage.
 FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of 
            programs that:
 Protect and recover threatened and endangered species;
 Monitor and manage migratory birds;
 Restore native aquatic populations and nationally significant 
            fisheries;
 Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international 
            trade;
 Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
 Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through 
            international conservation efforts;
 Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and tribes 
            for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
 Manage the 96-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, 
            which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their 
            habitats and allows the public to engage in outdoor 
            recreational activities.
Critical challenges to the work of FWS include: Global climate change; 
shortages of clean water suitable for wildlife; invasive species that 
are harmful to our fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 
habitats; and the alienation of children and adults from the natural 
world. To address these challenges, FWS has identified six priorities:
 National Wildlife Refuge System--conserving our lands and 
            resources;
 Landscape conservation--working with others;
 Migratory birds--conservation and management;
 Threatened and endangered species--achieving recovery and 
            preventing extinction;
 Connection between people and nature--ensuring the future of 
            conservation; and
 Aquatic species--the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (a plan 
            that brings public and private partners together to restore 
            U.S. waterways to sustainable health) and trust species.
To carry out these priorities, FWS has a large regulatory agenda. FWS 
programs will conduct rulemaking to, among other things:
 List, delist, and reclassify species on the List of Threatened 
            and Endangered Species and designate critical habitat for 
            certain listed species;
 Update our regulations to carry out the Convention on 
            International Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora;
 Manage migratory bird populations;
 Administer the subsistence program for harvesting fish and 
            wildlife in Alaska;
 Update our regulations to carry out the Wildlife and Sport 
            Fish Restoration Program; and
 Publish hunting and sport fishing regulations for the National 
            Wildlife Refuge System.
National Park Service
NPS currently administers Commercial Use Authorizations (CUAs) under an 
interim policy, but needs a regulation to standardize fees; allow cost 
recovery by NPS where appropriate; ensure clear and consistent criteria 
for issuance of CUAs; and, where necessary, allow parks to limit and 
set conditions for limiting the number of authorizations issued. The 
regulation will also allow better enforcement of permit conditions, 
which promotes protection of park resources and public safety. NPS 
expects to publish the proposed rule in December 2009.
In November 2006 the National Park Service completed a nearly 10-year 
public process to develop a management plan for the Colorado River in 
Grand Canyon National Park. The Service is now implementing the plan by 
developing regulations that: implement permit requirements for 
commercial river trips below a specified location in the canyon; update 
visitor use restrictions and camping closures; and eliminate 
unnecessary provisions in the current regulation. The proposed rule was 
published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2009, and the public 
comment period ended on September 11, 2009.
The National Park Service is working with the Bureau of Land Management 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize rules implementing Public 
Law 106-206, which directs the Secretary to establish a reasonable fee 
system (location fees) for commercial filming and still photography 
activities on public lands. Although commercial filming and still 
photography are generally allowed on Federal lands, it is in the 
public's interest to manage these activities through a permitting 
process. This will minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural 
or natural resources or interference with other visitors to the area. 
This regulation would standardize the collection of location fees by 
DOI agencies.
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, we apply management, engineering, and science to achieve

[[Page 64256]]

effective and environmentally sensitive solutions.
Reclamation projects provide: 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. We have increased 
security at our facilities and implemented our law enforcement 
authorization received in November 2001.
Our regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2010 is to ensure that our 
mission and laws that require regulatory actions are carried out 
expeditiously, efficiently, and with an emphasis on cooperative problem 
solving by implementing two newly authorized programs:
 Title I of Public Law 109-451 authorizes establishment of a 
            rural water supply program to enable the Bureau of 
            Reclamation to coordinate with rural communities throughout 
            the Western United States to identify their potable water 
            supply needs and evaluate options for meeting those needs. 
            Under the Act, we are finalizing a rule that will define 
            how we will identify and work with eligible rural 
            communities. We published an interim final rule on November 
            17, 2008, and expect to publish a final rule in 2010.
 Title II of Public Law 109-451 authorizes the Secretary of the 
            Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to issue loan 
            guarantees to assist in financing: (a) rural water supply 
            projects, (b) extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation 
            of Reclamation project facilities, and (c) improvements to 
            infrastructure directly related to Reclamation projects. 
            This new program will provide an additional funding option 
            to help western communities and water managers to cost 
            effectively meet their water supply and maintenance needs. 
            Under the Act, we are working with the Office of Management 
            and Budget to publish a rule that will establish criteria 
            for administering the loan guarantee program. We published 
            a proposed rule on October 6, 2008, and expect to publish a 
            final rule in 2010.
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-S

[[Page 64257]]




DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The highest priority of the Department is to protect America against 
acts of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, within the letter and 
spirit of the Constitution. Without ever relaxing in the fight against 
terrorism, the Department is also reinvigorating its traditional 
missions by embracing its historic role in fighting crime, protecting 
civil rights, preserving the environment, and ensuring fairness in the 
market place. The Department is working to ensure the fair and 
impartial administration of justice for all Americans, assist the 
agency's state and local partners, and defend the interests of the 
United States according to the law. In addition to using investigative, 
prosecutorial, and other law enforcement activities, the Department is 
also using the regulatory process to better carry out the Department's 
wide-ranging 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 
(ADA). 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
 In June 2008, the Department has published proposed rules 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) on July 23, 2004. During FY 2010, the Department expects 
to complete its work on these regulations and to further amend the 
Department's regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 
which took effect on January 1, 2009.
 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. In 2004, the Access Board revised its 
Accessibility Guidelines 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, to promote 
greater consistency between the Federal accessibility requirements and 
the model codes, and to provide greater consistency between the ADA 
guidelines and the guidelines that implement the Architectural Barriers 
Act. Therefore, the Department proposed to adopt revised ADA Standards 
for Accessible Design that are consistent with the revised ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines.
 The Department has also proposed to revise 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 
update the regulations to reflect the current state of law, and to 
ensure the Department's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended.
 The Department's proposed rules were the second step in a three-step 
process to adopt and interpret the Access Board's revised and amended 
guidelines. 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 
simplified and clarified the preparation of the proposed rule. 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. The second 
step of the rulemaking process was the publication of proposed rules 
that would adopt revised ADA accessibility standards and that will 
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 also 
offered proposed answers to the interpretive questions raised in the 
advance notice and presented an initial regulatory assessment.
 The final step in the process will be the publication of a final rule. 
Changes mandated by the ADA Amendments Act will be addressed in a 
separate rulemaking.
Other Department Initiatives
1. Prison Rape Elimination
The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) was created by 
Congress as a bipartisan panel as part of the Prison Rape Elimination 
Act of 2003 (PREA.) In June 2009, the NPREC issued its report 
consisting of findings, conclusions and recommendations to the 
President, Congress, the United States Attorney General, and other 
Federal and State officials. The Department is in the process of 
reviewing the Commission's recommendations, engaging stakeholders, and 
drafting regulations to adopt national standards for the detection, 
reduction, and punishment of prison rape, as provided for by the PREA.
2. Federal Habeas Corpus Review Procedures in Capital Cases
Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
2005, on December 11, 2008 the Department promulgated a final rule to 
implement certification procedures for states seeking to qualify for 
the expedited Federal habeas corpus review procedures in capital cases 
under chapter 154 of title 28 of the United States Code. On February 5, 
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
soliciting further public comment on all aspects of the December 2008 
final rule. The Department is presently reviewing the comments it 
received in response to the February 2009 solicitation and will publish 
a summary and response as appropriate.
3. 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

[[Page 64258]]

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 2010, to seek 
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and 
explosives. 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 enforcing the 
Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations to prevent 
the diversion of controlled substances, while ensuring adequate 
supplies for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial 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.
 One of DEA's key regulatory initiatives is its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking ``Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances'' [RIN 
1117-AA61]. This regulation would provide practitioners with the option 
of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically and 
permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive electronic 
prescriptions for controlled substances. This regulation would provide 
pharmacies, hospitals, and practitioners with the ability to use modern 
technology for controlled substance prescriptions while maintaining the 
closed system of controls on 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 and purchase limits for over-
the-counter ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine 
products at the retail level; provides for the establishment of 
aggregate and individual company import and manufacturing quotas; and 
limits importation 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]
 ``Elimination of Exemptions for Chemical Mixtures Containing 
            the List I Chemicals Ephedrine and/or Pseudoephedrine'' 
            [RIN 1117-AB11]
 ``Registration Requirements for Importers and Manufacturers of 
            Prescription Drug Products Containing Ephedrine, 
            Pseudoephedrine, or Phenylpropanolamine'' [RIN 1117-AB09]
 ``Removal of Thresholds for the List I Chemicals 
            Pseudoephedrine and Phenylpropanolamine'' [RIN 1117-AB10]
 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: streamline regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and 
improving readability; improve disciplinary procedures through a 
revision of the subpart relating to the disciplinary process; reduce 
the introduction of contraband through various means, such as 
clarifying drug and alcohol surveillance testing programs and protect 
the public from continuing criminal activity committed within prison; 
and enhance the Bureau's ability to more closely monitor the 
communications of high-risk inmates.
4. 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 authorization was transferred from the Justice Department's 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS). However, the 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

[[Page 64259]]

removed or should be granted some form of relief from removal, and the 
Board has jurisdiction over appeals from those decisions, as well as 
other matters. 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 June 3, 2009, the Attorney General announced his intention to 
initiate a new rulemaking proceeding for regulations to govern claims 
of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. The 
Department is currently drafting regulations to further this goal. The 
Department is also drafting regulations pursuant to the William 
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 
to take into account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien 
children in removal proceedings.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




89. 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 is 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 simplified 
and clarified the preparation of the proposed rule. 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 
accompanied 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 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 issued as the second step of the above 
described title III rulemaking. This notice proposed to adopt revised 
ADA Standards for Accessible Design consistent with the minimum 
guidelines of the revised ADAAG, and initiated 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 Cost 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 
and has determined that they constitute

[[Page 64260]]

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 Department prepared an initial Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), pursuant to E.O. 12866, of the combined economic impact 
of changes contained in this proposed rule and in the companion NPRM to 
amend the Department's title II regulation (RIN 1190-AA46). The RIA 
incorporates the elements required for the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended. A summary of this RIA was published in the Federal Register 
at 73 FR 37009, 37042 (June 30, 2008). The full analysis is available 
for public review on www.regulations.gov and on the Department's ADA 
Home Page, www.ada.gov. A revised RIA will be made available to the 
public when the final rules are published.


The preliminary RIA indicates that the proposed rules will have a net 
positive public benefit, i.e., the benefits will exceed the costs over 
the life of the rule. This concept is expressed as the discounted net 
present value (NPV) The RIA projects that the NPV will be between $7.5 
billion (at a 7% discount rate) and $ 31.1 billion (at a 3% discount 
rate). The RIA also concludes that the combined effect of the proposed 
rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.


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                            06/17/08                    73 FR 34508
NPRM Comment Period End         08/18/08
NPRM Correction                 06/30/08                    73 FR 37009
Final Action                    03/00/10

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
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20030
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--CRT



90. 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 simplified and clarified the 
preparation of the proposed rule to

[[Page 64261]]

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 accompanied 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 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 issued as the second step of the above-
described title III rulemaking. This notice also proposed 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 Cost 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 design standard 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 Department prepared an initial Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), pursuant to E.O. 12866, of the combined economic impact 
of changes contained in this proposed rule and in the companion NPRM to 
amend the Department's title III regulation (RIN 1190-AA44). The RIA 
incorporates the elements required for the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended. A summary of this RIA was published in the Federal Register 
at 73 FR 36964, 36996 (June 30, 2008). The full analysis is available 
for public review on www.regulations.gov and on the Department's ADA 
Home Page, www.ada.gov. A revised RIA will be made available to the 
public when the final rules are published.


The preliminary RIA indicates that the proposed rules will have a net 
positive public benefit; i.e., the benefits will exceed the costs over 
the life of the rule. This concept is expressed as the discounted net 
present value (NPV) The RIA projects that the NPV will be between $ 7.5 
billion (at a 7% discount rate) and $ 31.1 billion (at a 3% discount 
rate). The RIA also concludes that the combined effect of the proposed 
rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.


The Access Board has made every effort to lessen the impact of its 
proposed guidelines on State and local governments but recognizes that 
the guidelines will have some federalism 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                            06/17/08                    73 FR 34466
NPRM Comment Period End         08/18/08
NPRM Correction                 06/30/08                    73 FR 36964
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions

[[Page 64262]]

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
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20030
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA46
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




91. ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 802; 21 USC 821; 21 USC 827; 21 USC 829; 21 USC 871(b)


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 1300; 21 CFR 1306; 21 CFR 1311


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


DEA is revising its regulations to establish the criteria that will 
allow DEA-registered practitioners to sign and transmit controlled 
substances prescriptions electronically. The regulations will also 
permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive these electronic 
prescriptions. These regulations would not mandate the use of 
electronic prescriptions, but would establish the requirements that 
must be met by any registrant that wishes to issue or receive 
electronic prescriptions for controlled substances. The regulations 
would establish requirements that practitioners must meet when issuing 
electronic prescriptions, including requirements for the software 
applications used to issue those prescriptions; registrants would have 
to use only those software applications that meet the security 
requirements if they intend to sign, transmit, or process electronic 
prescriptions for controlled substances. The regulations would not 
apply to software used to create a prescription that is then printed 
and manually signed. These revised regulations would be in addition to, 
not a replacement of, the existing rules.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are needed to give pharmacies, hospitals, and 
practitioners the ability to use modern technology for controlled 
substance prescriptions, while maintaining the closed system of 
distribution of controlled substances dispensing. The regulations are 
required to ensure, to the extent possible, that non-registrants cannot 
gain access to electronic prescription software applications to issue 
illegal prescriptions and that legitimate prescriptions, once written, 
cannot be altered or repudiated.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 871(b) provides that the 
Attorney General, DEA by delegation, may promulgate and enforce any 
rules, regulations, and procedures deemed necessary for the efficient 
execution of the Attorney General's functions, including general 
enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. Specific legal authority 
for this regulation is provided above.


Alternatives:


DEA solicited comments on all aspects of its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking regarding this matter, and also sought specific information 
on a number of issues and topics. All comments received have been 
considered. DEA has addressed comments in its Final Rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimated annualized cost of the Final Rule is $34 million (7 
percent net present value), which covers the costs for practitioners, 
pharmacies, and application providers.


Electronic prescriptions provide potential benefits in terms of reduced 
processing time, reduced callbacks, and fewer medication errors. These 
benefits of electronic prescriptions are not directly attributable to 
this rule except to the extent the rule facilitates implementation of 
electronic prescribing of controlled substances. Pharmacies will 
directly benefit from the rule as they will not be required to maintain 
paper copies of electronic prescriptions. Electronic prescriptions for 
controlled substances will also provide benefits as certain types of 
forgery or alteration of prescriptions may be less likely to occur.


Risks:


Were DEA not to promulgate these regulations, prescribing practitioners 
would not be permitted to sign and transmit electronic controlled 
substances prescriptions. Pharmacies would not be permitted to receive, 
dispense, and archive these electronic prescriptions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/05/01                    66 FR 13274
NPRM                            06/27/08                    73 FR 36722
NPRM Comment Period End         09/25/08
Final Rule                      03/00/10
Final Action Effective          05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


DEA-218

[[Page 64263]]

URL For Public Comments:
www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov

Agency Contact:
Mark W. Caverly
Chief, Liaison and Policy Section
Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
8701 Morrissette Drive
Springfield, VA 22152
Phone: 202 307-7297
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1117-AA61
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-S

[[Page 64264]]




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Executive Summary
The Department of Labor's (DOL) mission is to protect workers by 
improving working conditions, advancing opportunities for employment, 
protecting retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find 
workers, and strengthening collective bargaining. Secretary of Labor 
Hilda L. Solis' vision is that the work of the Labor Department will 
ensure there are good jobs for everyone.
To achieve this broad vision, the Secretary has established a series of 
12 specific strategic outcomes, which span across all of the 
Department's agencies. These outcomes are:
 Increasing workers' incomes and narrowing wage and income 
            inequality.
 Securing safe and healthy workplaces, wages and overtime, 
            particularly in high-risk industries.
 Assuring skills and knowledge that prepare workers to succeed 
            in a knowledge-based economy, including in high-growth and 
            emerging industry sectors like ``green'' jobs.
 Breaking down barriers to fair and diverse work places so that 
            every worker's contribution is respected.
 Improving health benefits and retirement security for all 
            workers.
 Providing work place flexibility for family and personal care-
            giving.
 Facilitating return to work for workers experiencing work 
            place injuries or illnesses who are able to work and 
            sufficient income and medical care for those who are unable 
            to work.
 Income support when work is impossible or unavailable.
 Helping workers who are in low-wage jobs or out of the labor 
            market find a path into middle class jobs.
 Ensuring workers have a voice in the work place.
 Assuring that global markets are governed by fair market rules 
            that protect vulnerable people, including women and 
            children, and provide workers a fair share of their 
            productivity and voice in their work lives.
 Helping middle-class families remain in the middle class.
Critical to this vision is ensuring these outcomes achieve good jobs 
for everyone. This includes vulnerable workers, workers in 
traditionally less safe industry sectors, farmworkers, health care 
workers and seniors, and those facing barriers to good employment.
The Secretary has directed each agency to ensure that all priority 
regulatory projects support achievement of one or more of the strategic 
outcomes that support the good jobs for everyone vision. The DOL Fall 
2009 Regulatory Plan reflects this direction.
Openness and Transparency
Using regulatory changes to produce greater openness and transparency 
is an integral part of a Department-wide compliance strategy. These 
efforts will not only enhance DOL agencies' enforcement tool set, but 
will encourage greater levels of compliance by the regulated community 
and enhance awareness among workers of their rights and benefits.
The Department's commitment to achieving greater openness and 
transparency is exemplified in its Regulatory Plan and Agenda. Several 
proposals from the Employee Benefits Security Administration expand 
disclosure requirements, substantially enhancing the availability of 
information to pension plan participants and beneficiaries and 
employers, and strengthening the retirement security of America's 
workers. These rulemakings are:
 Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed 
            Individual Account Plans, which would increase transparency 
            between individual account pension plans and their 
            participants and beneficiaries by ensuring that 
            participants and beneficiaries are provided the information 
            they need, including information about fees and expenses, 
            to make informed investment decisions.
 Amendment of Standards Applicable to General Statutory 
            Exemption for Services, which would require service 
            providers to disclose to plan fiduciaries services, fees, 
            compensation and conflicts of interest information.
 Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Plans, which would 
            require defined benefit plan administrators to provide all 
            participants, beneficiaries and other parties with detailed 
            information regarding their plan's funding status.
 Periodic Pension Benefits Statements, which would require 
            pension plans to provide participants and certain 
            beneficiaries with periodic benefit statements.
 Multiemployer Plan Information Made Available on Request, 
            which would require pension plan administrators to provide 
            copies of financial and actuarial reports to participants 
            and beneficiaries, unions and contributing employers on 
            request.
Several other Labor Department agencies will also be proposing 
regulatory projects that will foster greater openness and transparency. 
These include:
 The Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposed 
            regulation on Notification of Legal Identity, which aims to 
            require mine operators to provide increased identification 
            information, would allow the agency to better target the 
            most egregious and persistent violators and deter future 
            violations.
 The Office of Labor-Management Standards' proposed regulations 
            on Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor 
            Laws, which would implement Executive Order 13496 and 
            require all Government contracting agencies to include a 
            contract clause requiring contractors to inform workers of 
            their rights under Federal labor laws.
 The Wage and Hour Division's rulemaking, Records to be Kept by 
            Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would 
            update decades old recordkeeping regulations in order to 
            enhance the transparency and disclosure to workers as to 
            how their wages are computed and to allow for new workplace 
            practices such as telework and flexiplace arrangements.
 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
            modification of its Hazard Communication Standard, which 
            would adopt standardized labeling requirements and order of 
            information for safety data sheets.
 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
            Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting 
            Requirements rule, which would propose the collection of 
            additional data to help employers and workers track 
            injuries at individual workplaces, improve the Nation's 
            occupational injury and illness information data, and 
            assist the agency in its enforcement of the safety and 
            health workplace requirements.

[[Page 64265]]

The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Labor's (DOL) 2009 Regulatory Plan highlights the 
most noteworthy and significant regulatory projects that will be 
undertaken by its regulatory agencies: the Employment Standards 
Administration (ESA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Employee Benefits 
Security Administration (EBSA), and Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA). The initiatives and priorities in the regulatory 
plan represent those that are essential to the fulfillment of the 
Secretary's vision for the Department and America's workforce.
Employment and Training Administration
ETA is charged with assuring our Nation's workers have the skills and 
knowledge that will prepare them to succeed in a knowledge-based 
economy, including high-growth and emerging industry sectors such as 
``green jobs.'' For those workers who are in low-wage jobs or out of 
the labor market, ETA programs will help them find a path to self-
sufficiency and good, middle class jobs. And for those who are unable 
to work, or for whom work is unavailable, ETA programs provide income 
support and a path to self-sufficiency. ETA is playing a pivotal role 
in the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 (Recovery Act) to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions 
of jobs, and make a down payment on addressing long-neglected 
challenges so our country can thrive. Through these efforts and others, 
ETA is transforming the way it provides services to all workers.
ETA is highlighting four regulatory priorities that reflect the 
Secretary's vision to advance good jobs for everyone with measurable 
and substantial outcomes. These are:
 The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers Program 
            Regulations propose to implement changes to the TAA program 
            that arose when the program was re-authorized and expanded 
            in the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act amended the 
            certification criteria, expanded the types of workers who 
            may be certified, and expanded the available program 
            benefits. The TAA regulations will help provide 
            opportunities for participants to acquire skills and 
            knowledge needed to become, or remain, employable in the 
            middle-class jobs market. The TAA regulations will also 
            help provide guidance on supplying participants with income 
            support for times when work is impossible or unavailable. 
            The overarching outcomes for the completion of the TAA 
            regulations are to help middle-class families remain middle 
            class and help workers who are out of the labor market find 
            a path into the middle class.
 The Trade Adjustment Assistance: Merit Staffing of State 
            Administration and Allocation of Training Funds to States 
            Regulation proposes that personnel carrying out the worker 
            adjustment assistance provisions of the TAA program must be 
            State employees covered by the merit system of personnel 
            administration and addresses how the Department distributes 
            TAA training funds to the States. It will be finalized 
            after the public comments on the regulation have been 
            analyzed and considered. The Allocation of Training Funds 
            portion of this regulation explains, for the first time, 
            the new formula that the Department uses to allocate 
            training funds to the States.
 The Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the 
            United States regulatory revisions set forth the 
            requirements for using temporary foreign agricultural 
            workers and establish wages and working conditions to cover 
            both U.S. and foreign agricultural workers. The H-2A 
            program assists in achieving the Secretary's goal to 
            increase workers' incomes and narrow wage and income 
            inequality by protecting the wages and working conditions 
            of both American workers and foreign nationals working in 
            the United States.
 The YouthBuild Program regulation proposes to implement the 
            YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006, which transferred the 
            YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban 
            Development to DOL, and amended certain program features to 
            emphasize skill training and connections to the public 
            workforce system. The YouthBuild regulations will help 
            achieve the Secretary's goals by assuring participants gain 
            the skills and knowledge that will prepare them to succeed 
            in a knowledge-based economy, including in high-growth and 
            emerging industry sectors like ``green jobs.''
In addition, the proposed amendments to regulations for equal 
employment opportunity (EEO) in apprenticeship and training are a 
critical second phase of regulatory updates to modernize the National 
Apprenticeship System. The first phase was completed in October 2008 
with the publication of a final rule updating regulations for 
Apprenticeship Programs and Labor Standards for Registration. The 
existing companion EEO regulations for apprenticeship were promulgated 
over 30 years ago. Proposed amendments to these regulations will help 
achieve the Secretary's goal of a fair and diverse workplace free of 
discrimination and harassment by reflecting current EEO law.
Finally, the Department proposes amendments to the temporary non-
agricultural foreign worker (H-2B Worker) regulations. As part of its 
statutory responsibility as an advisor to the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department certifies that there is not sufficient U.S. 
worker(s) able, available, willing and qualified at the time of an 
application for a visa, and that the employment of the alien will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed 
U.S. workers. The Department currently administers such certification 
through an attestation-based program. The regulatory review of the H-2B 
program will assist in achieving the Secretary's goal to increase 
workers' incomes and narrow wage and income inequality by protecting 
the wages and working conditions of both American workers and foreign 
nationals working in the United States.
Employee Benefits Security Administration
The Employee Benefits Security Administration is responsible for 
administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting and disclosure, 
and health coverage provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This includes recent amendments 
and additions to ERISA enacted in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 
as well as new COBRA Continuation Coverage Provisions under the 
Recovery Act. EBSA's regulatory plan initiatives are intended to 
improve health benefits and retirement security for workers in every 
type of job at every income level.
Health Benefits for Workers
EBSA will issue guidance implementing the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)

[[Page 64266]]

amendments to ERISA. Generally, GINA prohibits group health plans from 
discriminating in health coverage based on genetic information and from 
collecting genetic information. This rulemaking helps ensure that 
workers will have access to high quality health coverage, free from 
discrimination based on a genetic predisposition towards a disease. 
This is a joint rulemaking with the Departments of Health and Human 
Services and the Treasury.
EBSA also will be providing guidance regarding the Paul Wellstone and 
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 
(MHPAEA) amendments to ERISA. MHPAEA creates parity for mental health 
and substance use disorder benefits under group health plans by 
mandating that any financial requirements and treatment limitations 
applicable to mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits to be 
no more restrictive than predominant requirements or limitations 
applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by a 
plan. EBSA's MHPAEA guidance will help ensure the desired outcome of 
affording workers access to reliable and high quality health benefits.
EBSA also will issue guidance clarifying the circumstances under which 
health care arrangements established or maintained by state or local 
governments for the benefit of non-governmental employees do not 
constitute an employee welfare benefit plan for purposes of ERISA. Such 
clarification is intended to remove perceived impediments to state and 
local government efforts to improve access to and opportunities for 
quality and affordable health care coverage for vulnerable, uninsured 
populations. The clarifications provided by this regulation also will 
reduce uncertainty and, therefore, potential regulatory and litigation 
costs for both plan sponsors and state and local governments concerning 
the scope of ERISA regulation.
Retirement Security for Workers
EBSA will propose amendments to its regulations to clarify the 
circumstances under which a person will be considered a fiduciary when 
providing investment advice to employee benefit plans and their 
participants and beneficiaries of such plans. EBSA also will explore 
steps it can take by regulation, or otherwise, to encourage the 
offering of lifetime annuities or similar lifetime benefits 
distribution options for participants and beneficiaries of defined 
contribution plans. These initiatives are intended to assure retirement 
security for workers in all jobs regardless of income level by ensuring 
that financial advisers and similar persons are required to meet 
ERISA's strict standards of fiduciary responsibility and helping to 
ensure that participants and beneficiaries have the benefit of their 
plan savings throughout retirement.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Secretary's vision for workers requires securing a safe and healthy 
workplace. OSHA's regulatory program is designed to help workers and 
employers identify hazards in the workplace, prevent the occurrence of 
injuries and adverse health effects, and communicate with the regulated 
community regarding hazards and how to effectively control them. 
Longstanding health hazards such as silica and beryllium and emerging 
hazards such as food flavorings containing diacetyl and airborne 
infectious diseases place American workers at risk of serious disease 
and death and are initiatives on OSHA's regulatory agenda. OSHA's 
regulatory program demonstrates a renewed commitment to worker health 
by addressing health hazards and the prevention of construction 
injuries and fatalities.
First, OSHA is proposing to address worker exposures to crystalline 
silica through the promulgation and enforcement of a comprehensive 
health standard. Exposure to silica causes silicosis, a debilitating 
respiratory disease, and may cause cancer, other chronic respiratory 
diseases, and renal and autoimmune disease as well. Over 2 million 
workers are exposed to crystalline silica in general industry, 
construction, and maritime industries and workers are often exposed to 
levels that exceed current OSHA permissible limits, which is frequent 
in the construction industry where workers are exposed at levels that 
exceed current limits by several fold. It has been estimated that 
between 3,500 and 7,000 new cases of silicosis arise each year in the 
U.S., and that 1,746 workers died of silicosis between 1996 and 2005.
Reducing these hazardous exposures through promulgation and enforcement 
of a comprehensive health standard supports both the Secretary's vision 
and will contribute to OSHA's goal of reducing occupational fatalities 
and illnesses. As a part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe 
and healthy workplaces, the Mine Safety and Health Administration will 
also be undertaking regulatory action related to silica utilizing 
information provided by OSHA.
OSHA's second health initiative would revise its Hazard Communication 
Standard (HCS) to make it consistent with a globally harmonized 
approach to hazard communication. The HCS covers over 945,000 hazardous 
chemical products in seven million American workplaces and gives 
workers the ``right to know'' about chemical hazards they are exposed 
to. 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). Revising the HCS to be 
consistent with the GHS is expected to significantly improve the 
communication of hazards to workers in American workplaces, reducing 
exposures to hazardous chemicals, and reducing occupational illnesses 
and fatalities.
Workers in construction suffer the most fatalities of any industry. In 
2008, OSHA estimated that crane-related accidents in construction cause 
over 80 fatalities a year. Therefore, OSHA's major construction 
initiative is an update of the 1971 Cranes and Derricks Standards. 
Completion of this standard will contribute to a reduction in 
occupational injuries and fatalities, which helps achieve the 
Secretary's outcome goal of securing safe and healthy workplaces in 
high-risk industries. The Agency is currently evaluating the public 
comments and planning to issue a final rule in July 2010.
Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSHA's regulatory projects support the Secretary's vision by protecting 
the health and safety of the Nation's miners. Despite the agency's past 
efforts, miners face safety and health hazards daily at levels unknown 
in most other occupations. While the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 
of 1977 (Mine Act) places primary responsibility for preventing unsafe 
and unhealthful working conditions in mines on the operators, the 
collective commitment of miners, mine operators, and government is 
needed to ensure safe workplaces.
The agency's proposed regulatory actions exemplify a commitment to 
protecting the most vulnerable populations while assuring broad-based 
compliance. Health hazards are pervasive in both coal and metal/
nonmetal mines (including

[[Page 64267]]

surface and underground mines) and large and small mines.
Recent data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health indicate increased prevalence of coal workers pneumoconiosis 
(CWP) ``clusters'' in several geographical areas, particularly in the 
Southern Appalachian Region. MSHA plans to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to address continued risk to coal miners from exposure to 
respirable coal mine dust.
On January 16, 2009, MSHA and NIOSH published a proposed rule that 
would revise requirements for the approval of coal mine personal dust 
sampling devices. The proposed rule would also establish performance-
based and other requirements for approval of the continuous personal 
dust monitor (CPDM) and revise requirements for the existing sampler. 
As a part of the agency's efforts in this area, MSHA plans to publish a 
Request for Information on the use of the CPDM to measure a miner's 
exposure to respirable coal mine dust. The CPDM represents advanced 
technology and the RFI will solicit information from the public to help 
the Agency determine how to best use the technology to assess coal 
miners' dust exposures. MSHA is also considering a rulemaking to 
address ways in which mine operators can improve protections in their 
dust control plans, emphasizing that the burden of compliance is on the 
mine operator, rather than relying exclusively on enforcement 
interventions.
These regulatory actions are a part of MSHA's Comprehensive Black Lung 
Reduction Strategy for reducing miners' exposure to respirable dust. 
This strategy includes enhanced enforcement, education and training, 
and health outreach and collaboration.
As a part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and healthy 
workplaces, both MSHA and OSHA will be undertaking regulatory action 
related to silica. Overexposure to crystalline silica can result in 
some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible but preventable lung 
disease which ultimately may be fatal. Both the coal mine and metal/
nonmetal formulas are designed to limit exposures to 0.1 mg/m\3\ (100 
[micro]g) of silica. MSHA plans to follow the recommendation of the 
Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers, NIOSH, and other industry 
groups by publishing a proposed rule to address the exposure limit for 
respirable crystalline silica. To assure consistency within the 
Department, MSHA intends to use OSHA's work on the health effects of 
occupational exposure to silica and OSHA's risk assessment, adapting it 
as necessary for the mining industry.
MSHA is placing an emphasis on routinely evaluating the success of 
existing enforcement and regulatory strategies and plans to issue an 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on dams in metal and 
nonmetal mines. Mining operations regularly find it necessary to 
construct dams to dispose of large volumes of mine waste from 
processing operations, or to provide water supply, sediment control, or 
water treatment. The failure of these structures can have a devastating 
effect on both the mine and nearby communities. MSHA evaluated its 
existing requirements for metal and nonmetal dams and has determined 
that the current standards do not provide sufficient guidance to 
determine what is needed to effectively design and construct dams with 
high or significant hazard potential. The ANPRM will solicit 
information on proper design, construction and other safety issues for 
impoundments at metal and nonmetal mines whose failure could cause loss 
of life or significant property damage.
Employment Standards Administration
ESA's Wage and Hour Division enforces several statutes that establish 
minimum labor standards and protect the Nation's workers, including the 
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
Worker Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the 
Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, the Employee 
Polygraph Protection Act, and certain provisions of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. The regulatory initiatives required to implement these 
statutory workplace protections represent an important aspect of the 
Division's work and affect over 130 million workers across all sectors 
of the economy.
Updating the child labor regulations issued under the FLSA will help 
meet the challenge of ensuring good jobs for the Nation's working 
youth, by balancing their educational needs with job-related 
experiences that are safe, healthy, and fair. This will enhance young 
workers' opportunities to gain the skills to find and hold good jobs 
with the potential to increase their earnings over time.
The Wage and Hour Division will review the implementation of the new 
military family leave amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act 
that were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
2008, as well as other provisions of the FMLA regulations that were 
revised and implemented in January 2009. This regulatory initiative 
assists in achieving the Secretary's goal of workplace flexibility for 
family and personal care-giving and, particularly through the job 
protection and the maintenance of health benefits provisions, helps 
middle-class families remain in the middle class.
The Wage and Hour Division also intends to initiate rulemaking to 
update the recordkeeping regulation issued under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. Consistent with the Secretary's strategic vision, this 
proposal will foster more openness and transparency by demonstrating 
employers' compliance with minimum wage and overtime requirements to 
workers. In turn, this will better ensure compliance by regulated 
entities and assist the Department with its enforcement efforts.
ESA's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is charged 
with assuring that the door to opportunity is open to every American 
regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran 
status, or disability. OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, as 
amended, and selected provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' 
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), and Section 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503). Regulations 
issued under the Executive Order and the two acts govern the 
nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations for Federal 
contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP's enforcement of these statutory 
obligations contributes to achieving several of the Secretary's desired 
outcomes, including increasing workers' incomes and narrowing wage and 
income inequality, breaking down barriers to fair and diverse work 
places so that every worker's contribution is respected and helping 
workers who are in low-wage jobs or out of the labor market find a path 
into middle-class jobs.
OFCCP is highlighting three regulatory initiatives that reflect the 
Secretary's vision of good jobs for everyone. The Evaluation of 
Recruitment and Placement Results under Section 503 ANPRM will invite 
the public to provide input on how the Department can strengthen 
affirmative action requirements by requiring Federal contractors and 
subcontractors to conduct more substantive analyses and monitoring of 
their recruitment and

[[Page 64268]]

placement efforts targeted to individuals with disabilities.
The Evaluation of Recruitment and Placement Results under VEVRRA NPRM 
will propose to revise provisions in the regulations to strengthen 
compliance with affirmative action requirements, including the 
establishment of outreach, recruitment, and placement goals for the 
employment and advancement of covered veterans. This effort will help 
support the creation of good jobs for veterans, especially those 
returning from recent service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through this 
initiative, OFCCP will help servicemen and women successfully 
transition into civilian life.
The Construction Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements proposed 
rule would revise the regulations implementing the affirmative action 
requirements of Executive Order 11246 that are applicable to federal 
and federally-assisted construction contractors. The initiative would 
update regulatory provisions that set forth the actions construction 
contractors are required to take to implement their affirmative action 
obligations.
ESA's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and 
enforces most provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA requires unions, employers, 
labor-relations consultants, and others to file financial disclosure 
reports, which are publicly available. The LMRDA includes provisions 
protecting union member rights to participate in their union's 
governance, to run for office and fully exercise their union 
citizenship, as well as procedural safeguards to ensure free and fair 
union elections.
OLMS intends to publish a Request for Information regarding the use of 
Internet voting in union officer elections conducted under the LMRDA to 
better inform the agency in administering its obligation under the 
union democracy provisions of the Act to ensure that the voting right 
of each union member is protected. OLMS also will propose a regulatory 
initiative to better implement the public disclosure objectives of the 
LMRDA regarding employer-consultant agreements to persuade employees 
concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively. Under 
LMRDA section 203 an employer must report any agreement or arrangement 
with a third party consultant to persuade employees as to their 
collective bargaining rights or to obtain certain information 
concerning the activities of employees or a labor organization in 
connection with a labor dispute involving the employer. The consultant, 
also, is required to report concerning such an agreement or arrangement 
with an employer. An exemption to these reporting requirements is set 
forth in LMRDA section 203(c), which provides, in part, that employers 
and consultants are not required to file a report by reason of the 
consultant's giving or agreeing to give ``advice'' to the employer. The 
Department believes that current policy concerning the scope of the 
``advice exemption'' is over-broad and that a narrower construction 
would better allow for the employer and consultant reporting intended 
by the LMRDA. Regulatory action is needed to provide workers with 
information critical to their effective participation in the workplace. 
When workers or union members have more information about what 
arrangements have been made by their employer to persuade them whether 
or not to join a union, this information helps them make more informed 
choices and acts to level the labor-management relations playing field. 
Both initiatives support the Secretary's vision of good jobs for 
everyone by advancing the goal to ensure that workers and union members 
have a voice in the workplace.
ESA's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers four 
major disability compensation programs that provide wage replacement 
benefits, medical treatment, vocational rehabilitation and other 
benefits (such as survivors benefits) to certain workers who experience 
work-related injury or occupational disease. The Federal Employees' 
Compensation Act (FECA) provides workers' compensation benefits to 
federal workers for employment related injuries and occupational 
diseases as well as survivor benefits for a covered employee's 
employment-related death. The Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides vocational rehabilitation, medical 
benefits, and financial compensation to covered maritime workers who 
incurred occupational injuries or illnesses as a result of exposure to 
their employment. The LHWCA provides similar coverage for employees 
covered by the Defense Base Act (DBA).
These programs serve to advance the Secretary's vision of good jobs for 
everyone by securing the desired outcomes of facilitating return to 
work for workers experiencing workplace injuries or illnesses who are 
able to work and sufficient income and medical care for those who are 
unable to work; providing income support when work is impossible or 
unavailable; and providing compensation to eligible survivors after the 
death of a covered worker, thereby helping middle class families remain 
in the middle class.
OWCP plans to update its regulations governing administration of claims 
under the FECA. The regulations will be revised to reflect changes 
already in place since the regulations were comprehensively updated ten 
years ago and to incorporate new procedures that will enhance OWCP's 
ability to administer FECA. Among other benefits, changes to the 
regulations will facilitate the return to work of injured workers who 
are able to work, will enhance OWCP's ability to efficiently provide 
sufficient income and medical care for those who are unable to work, 
and will foster greater openness and transparency by better explaining 
the increased automation of the medical billing process.
In addition, OWCP will modernize the provision of compensation for 
employees situated overseas who are neither citizens nor residents of 
the United States to reflect current realities in regard to such 
employees. The regulations will also be revised to reflect a recent 
statutory change to the FECA moving the three-day waiting period before 
qualifying for wage-loss compensation for employees of the Postal 
Service. These revisions will increase the transparency of program 
operations and improve program implementation with efficiency providing 
better service in a more timely fashion.
OWCP plans to issue regulations under the LHWCA to clarify the 
application of the waiver provisions of the DBA, by explaining the DOL 
procedures for reviewing and granting a waiver. These rules will 
facilitate return to work for employees experiencing workplace injuries 
or illnesses who are able to work and sufficient income and medical 
care for those who are unable to work.

[[Page 64269]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




92.  THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 2654


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 825


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor continues to review the implementation of the 
new military family leave amendments to the Family and Medical Leave 
Act included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, and 
other revisions of the current regulations implemented in January 2009.


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 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. In addition, section 585(a) 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (NDAA), Public 
Law 110-181, amended the FMLA effective January 28, 2008, to permit an 
eligible employee who is the ``spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next 
of kin of a covered servicemember'' to take up to a total of 26 
workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for the 
covered servicemember, defined as ``a member of the Armed Forces, 
including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, who is undergoing 
medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient 
status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a 
serious injury or illness.'' The NDAA amendment to FMLA also permits an 
eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of FMLA leave for ``any 
qualifying exigency (as the Secretary [of Labor] shall, by regulation, 
determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, 
or parent of the employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an 
impending call or order to active duty) in the Armed Forces in support 
of a contingency operation.'' Regulations implementing these amendments 
were published November 17, 2008, and took effect January 16, 2009 (73 
FR 67934). The Department is reviewing the implementation of these new 
military family leave amendments and other revisions of the current 
regulations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by section 404 of the Family and 
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2654.


Alternatives:


After completing a review of the implementation of the new military 
family leave amendments and other revisions of the regulations 
implemented in January 2009, regulatory alternatives will be developed 
for notice-and-comment rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
initiative will be determined once regulatory alternatives are 
developed.


Risks:


This rulemaking action does not directly affect risks to public health, 
safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Richard M. Brennan
Director, Division of Interpretations and Regulatory Analysis, Wage and 
Hour Division
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S-3502
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1387
RIN: 1215-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA



93.  RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY EMPLOYERS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR 
STANDARDS ACT

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 211(c)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 516


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor proposes to update the recordkeeping 
regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to enhance the 
transparency and disclosure to workers of how their pay is computed, 
and to modernize other recordkeeping requirements for employees under 
``telework'' and ``flexiplace'' arrangements.


Statement of Need:


The recordkeeping regulation issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act 
(FLSA), 29 CFR part 516, specifies the scope and manner of records 
covered employers must keep that demonstrate compliance with minimum 
wage, overtime, and child labor requirements under the FLSA, or the 
records to be kept that confirm particular exemptions from some of the 
Act's requirements may apply. This proposal intends to update the 
recordkeeping requirements to foster more openness and transparency in 
demonstrating employers' compliance with applicable requirements to 
their workers, to better ensure compliance by regulated entities and to 
assist in enforcement. In addition, the proposal intends to modernize 
the requirements, consistent with the increasing emphasis on flexi-
place and telecommuting, to allow for

[[Page 64270]]

automated or electronic recordkeeping systems instead of the mandatory 
manual preparation of ``homeworker'' handbooks currently required for 
all work that an employee may perform in the home.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by section 11 of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 211.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be developed in considering proposed revisions to the 
current recordkeeping requirements. The public will be invited to 
provide comments on the proposed revisions and possible alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of anticipated costs and benefits of this 
regulatory initiative have not been determined at this time and will be 
determined at a later date as appropriate.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Richard M. Brennan
Director, Division of Interpretations and Regulatory Analysis, Wage and 
Hour Division
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S-3502
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1387
RIN: 1215-AB78
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA



94.  INTERPRETATION OF THE ``ADVICE'' EXEMPTION OF SECTION 
203(C) OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 433; 29 USC 438


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 405; 29 CFR 406


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department intends to publish notice and comment rulemaking seeking 
consideration of a revised interpretation of Section 203(c) of the 
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). That statutory 
provision creates an ``advice'' exemption from reporting requirements 
that apply to employers and other persons in connection with persuading 
employees about the right to organize and bargain collectively. A 
proposed revised interpretation would narrow the scope of the advice 
exemption.


Statement of Need:


The Department of Labor is proposing a regulatory initiative to better 
implement the public disclosure objectives of the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) regarding employer-consultant 
agreements to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize 
and bargain collectively. Under LMRDA section 203 an employer must 
report any agreement or arrangement with a third party consultant to 
persuade employees as to their collective bargaining rights or to 
obtain certain information concerning the activities of employees or a 
labor organization in connection with a labor dispute involving the 
employer. The consultant, also, is required to report concerning such 
an agreement or arrangement with an employer. Statutory exceptions to 
these reporting requirements are set forth in LMRDA section 203(c), 
which provides, in part, that employers and consultants are not 
required to file a report by reason of the consultant's giving or 
agreeing to give ``advice'' to the employer. The Department believes 
that its current policy concerning the scope of the ``advice 
exception'' is over-broad and that a narrower construction would better 
allow for the employer and consultant reporting intended by the LMRDA. 
Regulatory action is needed to provide workers with information 
critical to their effective participation in the workplace.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rulemaking is authorized under U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  433 and 
438 and applies to regulations at 29 CFR Part 405 and 29 CFR Part 406.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be developed and considered in the course of notice 
and comment rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory initiative 
have not been assessed and will be determined at a later date, as 
appropriate.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.olms.dol.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Andrew R. Davis
Chief, Division of Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-
Management Standards
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5609
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0123
Fax: 202 693-1340
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1215-AB79

[[Page 64271]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




95. CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 203(l); 29 USC 212; 29 USC 213(c)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 570


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor continues to review the Fair Labor Standards 
Act child labor provisions to ensure that the implementing regulations 
provide job opportunities for working youth that are healthy and safe 
and not detrimental to their education, as required by the statute (29 
U.S.C. sections 203(l), 212(c), 213(c), and 216(e)). This proposed rule 
will update the regulations to reflect statutory amendments enacted in 
2004, and will propose, among other updates, revisions to address 
several recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) in its 2002 report to the Department of Labor 
on the child labor Hazardous Occupations Orders (HOs) (available at 
http://www.youthrules.dol.gov/resources.htm).


Statement of Need:


The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires the Secretary of Labor to 
issue regulations on the employment of minors between 14 and 16 years 
of age, ensuring that the periods and conditions of their employment do 
not interfere with their schooling, health, or well-being, and to 
designate occupations that are particularly hazardous for minors 16 and 
17 years of age. Child Labor Regulation No. 3 sets forth the 
permissible industries and occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds 
may be employed, specifies the number of hours in a day and in a week, 
and time periods within a day, that such minors may be employed. 
Updating the child labor regulations issued under the FLSA will help 
meet the challenge of ensuring good jobs that are safe, healthy, and 
fair for the Nation's working youth, while balancing their educational 
needs with job-related experiences that are safe. Updated child labor 
regulations that better address the safety needs of today's workplaces 
will ensure our young workers have permissible job opportunities that 
are safe, enhancing their opportunity to gain the skills to find and 
hold good jobs with the potential to increase their earnings over time. 
Ensuring safe and reasonable work hours for working youth will also 
ensure that top priority is given to their education, consistent with 
the purposes of the statute.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are issued pursuant to sections 3(1), 11, 12, and 13 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(1), 211, 121, and 213.


Alternatives:


When developing regulatory alternatives in the analysis of 
recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health in its 2002 report to the Department on the child labor 
hazardous occupations orders and other proposals, the Department has 
focused on assuring healthy, safe, and fair workplaces for young 
workers that are not detrimental to their education, as required by the 
statute. Some of the regulatory alternatives were developed based on 
recent legislative amendments.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking initiative indicated it was not economically significant. 
Benefits to the public, including employers and workers, will include 
safer working conditions and the avoidance of injuries and lost 
productivity involving young workers.


Risks:


The Department's child labor regulations, by ensuring that permissible 
job opportunities for working youth are safe and healthy and not 
detrimental to their education, produce positive benefits by reducing 
health-related and lost-productivity costs employers might otherwise 
incur from higher accident and injury rates to young and inexperienced 
workers. Because of the limited nature of the regulatory revisions 
contemplated under this initiative, a detailed assessment of the 
magnitude of risk was not prepared.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/17/07                    72 FR 19337
NPRM Comment Period End         07/16/07
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Richard M. Brennan
Director, Division of Interpretations and Regulatory Analysis, Wage and 
Hour Division
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S-3502
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1387
RIN: 1215-AB57
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




96. YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM REGULATION

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 populations. 
The program model

[[Page 64272]]

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:


The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 (Transfer Act), PL 109-281, 
transfers the YouthBuild program from the HUD to the DOL. The transfer 
incorporates technical modifications and amends certain program 
features. The Employment and Training Administration is proposing new 
regulations which will govern its administration of the YouthBuild 
program.


The Transfer Act maintains all the goals of the YouthBuild program as 
originally developed under HUD, including supporting the development of 
affordable housing, but shifts the emphasis to skills training for 
youth participants. The Transfer Act makes the YouthBuild program 
consistent with the job training, education, and employment goals under 
the Workforce Investment Act, PL 105-220, as amended. This includes 
authorizing DOL to apply the common performance measures developed for 
Federal youth activities employment and training programs. The Transfer 
Act authorizes education and workforce investment, such as occupational 
skills training, internships, and job shadowing, as well as community 
service and peer-centered activities. In addition, the Transfer Act 
allows for greater coordination of the YouthBuild program with the 
workforce investment system, including local workforce investment 
boards, and One-Stop Career Centers, and their partner programs. These 
strengthened connections will enhance the job training and employment 
opportunities available to participating at-risk youth.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by Public Law 109-281, The YouthBuild 
Transfer Act of 2006, to implement changes to the amendments to 
subtitle D of Title I of the Workfoce Investment Act of 1998 as amended 
(WIA).


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
YouthBuild program changes when the Department publishes the NPRM in 
the Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after analysis and 
incorporation of public comments to the NPRM.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Grace A. Kilbane
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building, Room S-4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3980
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA



97. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS PROGRAM; REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order 3-2007, 72 FR 15907


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 617, 618, 665, 671; 29 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2009 (Act), Div. B, Title 
I, Subtitle I of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 
reauthorizes the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers program. More 
specifically, the law amends the criteria for certification of worker 
groups as eligible to apply for benefits and services and substantially 
expands those benefits and services. It also requires reports on the 
program's effectiveness. The Act amends section 248 of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2320) and requires that the Secretary issue regulations 
to carry out these provisions.


Statement of Need:


The Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA) 
is the portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Recovery Act) (Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. B, Title I, Subtitle I) that 
reauthorized and substantially amended the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
for Workers (TAA) program. Significant program changes enacted in the 
TGAAA include amending the certification criteria to expand the types 
of workers who may be certified and expanding the available program 
benefits. This proposed rule is important because it will update the 
program's regulations to be in concert with the notable program changes 
wrought by the TGAAA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by sections 248 of the Trade Act (19 
U.S.C. 2320), as amended by the TGAAA.


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
proposed regulatory changes when the Department publishes the NPRM in 
the Federal Register. A final rule will be issued after analysis of, 
and response to, public comments.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 64273]]

Agency Contact:
Erin Fitzgerald
Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C-5311, FP Building
Washingon, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3500
Fax: 202 693-3149
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB57
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA



98.  EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN APPRENTICESHIP AND 
TRAINING, AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 664, as amended (29 USC 50; 40 USC 276c; 5 USC 301); 
Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (5 USC App. P. 534)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 30 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Revisions to the equal opportunity regulatory framework for the 
National Apprenticeship Act are a critical element in the Department's 
vision to promote and expand registered apprenticeship opportunities in 
the 21st century while continuing to safeguard the welfare and safety 
of apprentices. In October 2008, the Agency issued a Final rule 
updating regulations for Apprenticeship Programs and Labor Standards 
for Registration. These regulations, codified at Title 29 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 29, had not been updated since first 
promulgated in 1977. The companion regulations, 29 CFR part 30, Equal 
Employment Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship and Training, have not 
been amended since first promulgated in 1978.


The Agency now proposes to update 29 CFR part 30 to ensure that the 
National Registered Apprenticeship System is consistent and in 
alignment with changes in Affirmative Action regulations and EEO laws 
and court cases that have occurred over the past three decades [e.g. 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act (ADEA)], and recent revisions to Title 29 CFR part 29. 
This second phase of regulatory updates will ensure that Registered 
Apprenticeship is positioned to continue to provide economic 
opportunity for millions of Americans while keeping pace with these new 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


Federal regulations for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) in 
Apprenticeship and Training have not been updated since first 
promulgated in 1978. Updates to these regulations are necessary to 
ensure that DOL regulatory requirements governing the National 
Registered Apprenticeship System are consistent with the current state 
of EEO law, including affirmative action, the passage of, for example, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act (ADEA), and recent revisions to Title 29 CFR part 29, 
regulations for Apprenticeship Programs and Labor Standards for 
Registration.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by the National Apprenticeship Act of 
1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 276c). These 
regulations will set forth policies and procedures to promote equality 
of opportunity in apprenticeship programs registered with the U.S. 
Department of Labor or in State Apprenticeship Agencies recognized by 
the U.S. Department of Labor.


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
proposed amendment to Apprenticeship EEO regulations when the 
Department publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after analysis and 
incorporation of public comments to the NRPM.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of anticipated costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action have not been determined at this time. The Department 
will explore options for conducting a cost-benefit analysis for this 
regulatory action, if necessary.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
John V. Ladd
Office of Apprenticeship
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Room N5311
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2796
Fax: 202 693-3799
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB59
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




99. TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OF H-2A ALIENS IN THE UNITED 
STATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a); 8 USC 1188


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 655


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor (the Department of DOL) proposes to amend its 
regulations governing the certification of temporary employment of 
nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal agricultural employment 
and the enforcement of the contractual obligations applicable to 
employers of such nonimmigrant workers. This Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking would reexamine the process by which employers obtain a 
temporary labor certification from the Department for use in 
petitioning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to employ a 
nonimmigrant worker in H-2A status.


Statement of Need:


The Department has determined for a variety of reasons that a new

[[Page 64274]]

rulemaking effort is necessary for the H-2A program. The Department 
believes that the policy underpinnings of the 2008 Final Rule, e.g., 
streamlining the H-2A regulatory process to defer many determinations 
of program compliance until after an application has been fully 
adjudicated, do not provide an adequate level of protection for either 
U.S. or foreign workers.


In addition, the Department's experience under the program since 
January 2009 demonstrates that the policy goals of the 2008 Final Rule 
have not been met. One of the clear goals of the 2008 Final Rule was to 
increase the use of the H-2A program and to make the program easier and 
more affordable to use for the average employer. However, applications 
have actually decreased since the implementation of the new program. 
Not only has usage not increased under the program revisions, there has 
actually been a reversal of an existing multi-year trend toward 
increased program use. While factors other than the regulatory changes 
may play a role in this decrease, the Department can not justify the 
significant decrease in worker protections if the prior rules' goal of 
increasing program use is not being accomplished.


The Department believes that there are insufficient worker protections 
in the attestation-based model in which employers merely confirm, and 
do not actually demonstrate, that they have performed an adequate test 
of the U.S. labor market. Even in the first year of the attestation 
model, it has come to the Department's attention that employers, either 
from a lack of understanding or otherwise, are attesting to compliance 
with program obligations with which they have not complied. Such non-
compliance appears to be sufficiently substantial and widespread for 
the Department to revisit the use of attestations, even with the use of 
back-end integrity measures for demonstrated non-compliance.


The Department has also determined that the area in which agricultural 
workers are most vulnerable -- wages -- has been adversely impacted to 
a far more significant extent than anticipated by the 2008 Final Rule. 
The shift from the AEWR as calculated under the 1987 Rule to the AEWR 
of the 2008 Final Rule resulted in a substantial reduction of 
farmworker wages in a number of labor categories, and the obvious 
effects of that reduction on the workers' and their families' ability 
to meet necessary costs is an important concern.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These proposed regulations are authorized under Section 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
amended. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a); see also 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1) 
and 1188.


Alternatives:


The Department took into account both the regulations promulgated in 
1987, as well as the significant reworking of the regulations in the 
2008 Final Rule, in order to arrive at a balance between the worker 
protections of the 1987 Rule and the program integrity measures of the 
2008 Final Rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated monetized costs of this 
proposed regulatory action are $10.56 million in 2009 to $18.07 million 
in 2018. A final estimate of costs and benefits will be prepared at the 
Final Rule stage in response to public comments.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/13/08                     73 FR 8538
NPRM Comment Period End         03/31/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    04/14/08                    73 FR 16243
Final Rule                      12/18/08                    73 FR 77110
Final Rule Effective            01/17/09
Notice of Proposed 
    Suspension                  03/17/09                    74 FR 11408
Comment Period End              03/27/09
Notice of Final 
    Suspension                  05/29/09                    74 FR 25972
NPRM                            09/04/09                    74 FR 45905
NPRM Comment Period End         10/05/09
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    10/20/09                    74 FR 50929
Final Rule                      02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Dr. William L. Carlson
Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
FP Building
Room C-4312
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3010
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1205-AB55
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




100.  LIFETIME INCOME OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS AND 
BENEFICIARIES IN RETIREMENT PLANS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1135; ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This initiative will explore what steps, if any, that the Department 
could or should take, by regulation or otherwise, to enhance the 
retirement security of American workers by facilitating access to and 
use of lifetime income or income arrangements designed to provide a 
stream of income after retirement.


Statement of Need:


With a continuing trend away from defined benefit plans to defined 
contribution plans, employees are not only increasingly responsible for 
the adequacy of their retirement savings, but also for ensuring that 
their savings last throughout their retirement. Employees may benefit 
from access to and use of lifetime income or other arrangements that 
will reduce the risk of running out of funds during the retirement 
years. However, both access to and use of such arrangements in defined 
contribution plans is limited.

[[Page 64275]]

The Department, taking into consideration recommendations of the ERISA 
Advisory Council and others, intends to explore what steps, if any, it 
could or should take, by regulation or otherwise, to enhance the 
retirement security of workers by increasing access to and use of such 
arrangements.


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.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost 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                             01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey J. Turner
Chief, Division of Regulations, Office of Regulations and 
Interpretations
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Rm N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB33
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




101.  DEFINITION OF ``FIDUCIARY'' -- INVESTMENT ADVICE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1002; ERISA sec 3(21); 29 USC 1135; ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulatory definition of the term 
``fiduciary'' set forth at 29 CFR 2510.3-21 (c) to more broadly define 
as employee benefit plan fiduciaries persons who render investment 
advice to plans for a fee within the meaning of section 3(21) of ERISA. 
The amendment would take into account current practices of investment 
advisers and the expectations of plan officials and participants who 
receive investment advice.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to bring the definition of ``fiduciary'' into 
line with investment advice practices and to recast the current 
regulation to better reflect relationships between investment advisers 
and their employee benefit plan clients. The current regulation may 
inappropriately limit the types of investment advice relationships that 
should give rise to fiduciary duties on the part of the investment 
adviser.


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 2510.3-21(c) 
defines the term fiduciary for certain purposes under section 3(21) of 
ERISA.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost 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                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey J. Turner
Chief, Division of Regulations, Office of Regulations and 
Interpretations
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Rm N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



102.  HEALTH CARE ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED BY STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1135; ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2510.3-1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Department of Labor regulation 29 C.F.R. 2510.3-1 clarifies the 
definition of the terms ``employee welfare benefit plan'' and ``welfare 
plan'' for purposes

[[Page 64276]]

of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
(ERISA) by identifying certain practices which do not constitute 
employee welfare benefit plans. This rulemaking would amend that 
regulation to clarify the circumstances under which health care 
arrangements established or maintained by state or local governments 
for the benefit of non-governmental employees do not constitute an 
employee welfare benefit plan for purposes of section 3(1) of ERISA and 
29 CFR 2510.3-1.


Statement of Need:


Questions have been raised regarding the extent to which health care 
reform efforts on the part of state and local governments result in the 
creation of ERISA-covered employee welfare benefit plans or otherwise 
implicate ERISA. This regulation is needed to provide certainty to both 
governmental bodies and employers concerning the application of ERISA 
to such efforts.


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 2510.3-1 clarifies 
definitions of the terms ``employee welfare benefit plan'' and 
``welfare plan'' for purposes of title I of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost 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                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey J. Turner
Chief, Division of Regulations, Office of Regulations and 
Interpretations
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Rm N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB34
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




103. GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1182; 29 USC 1191b(d); 29 USC 1132


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 21, 2009, As per GINA section 101(f)(1).


Abstract:


Pursuant to ERISA sections 702, 733(d), and 502, as amended by the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) (Pub. L. 110-
233) enacted May 21, 2008, the Department is developing regulatory 
guidance. Regulatory guidance will provide clarification regarding 
GINA's prohibition against discrimination in group premiums based on 
genetic information, its limitations on genetic testing, its 
prohibition on collection of genetic information, and its new civil 
monetary penalties under ERISA.


Statement of Need:


GINA section 101(f)(1) requires the Secretary to issue regulations to 
carry out its statutory provisions no later than May 21, 2009.


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 ERISA. 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, GINA section 101(f) requires the Secretary to issue 
regulations to carry out GINA's amendments.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost 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         10/10/08                    73 FR 60208
Request for Information 
    Comment Period End          12/09/08
Interim Final Rule              10/07/09                    74 FR 51664
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   12/07/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/05/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Amy J. Turner
Senior Advisor
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5653
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8335
Fax: 202 219-1942
RIN: 1210-AB27
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--EBSA



104. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 64277]]

Legal Authority:


29 USC 1185a


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 8, 2009, as per MHPAEA section 512(d).


Abstract:


Pursuant to ERISA section 712, as amended by the Paul Wellstone and 
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 
(MHPAEA) (Pub. L. 110-343) enacted on October 8, 2008, the Department 
is developing regulatory guidance.


Statement of Need:


In response to a Request for Information in April 2008, over 400 
comment letters were received raising questions regarding compliance 
with the federal parity provisions. This regulation is needed to 
provide clarifications to participants, beneficiaries, health care 
providers, employment-based health plans, health insurance issuers, 
third-party administrators, brokers, underwriters, and other plan 
service providers regarding such provisions.


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. Section 734 of ERISA provides that 
the Secretary may prescribe regulations necessary or appropriate to 
carry out the provisions of ERISA Part 7. MHPAEA created new federal 
parity provisions in ERISA section 712 and provides, in section 512(d), 
that the Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out the provisions 
of MHPAEA.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost 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         04/28/09                    74 FR 19155
Request for Information 
    Comment Period End          05/28/09
Interim Final Rule              04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Amy J. Turner
Senior Advisor
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5653
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8335
Fax: 202 219-1942
Related RIN: Related to 0938-AP65, Related to 1545-BI70
RIN: 1210-AB30
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




105.  METAL AND NONMETAL IMPOUNDMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Water, sediment, and slurry impoundments for metal and nonmetal mining 
and milling operations are located throughout the country. Some of 
these impoundments would impact homes, well-traveled roads, and other 
important infrastructure if they were to fail. Impoundment failures 
could endanger lives and cause property damage. MSHA will issue an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit information relative 
to proper design, construction, operation, maintenance, and other 
safety issues for impoundments at metal and nonmetal mines whose 
failure could cause loss of life or significant property damage.


Statement of Need:


Mining operations regularly find it necessary to construct dams to 
dispose of large volumes of mine waste (tailings or slurry) from 
processing operations, or to provide water supply, sediment control, or 
water treatment. Impoundments are structures that are used to impound 
water, sediment, or slurry or any combination of materials. Dams that 
form impoundments must be designed to be stable under the various 
conditions they will be subjected to, including runoff from rainfall, 
seepage, and possibly earthquake shaking. The failure of these 
structures can have a devastating effect on both the mine and nearby 
communities.


Every two years since 1980, a report has been prepared by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and sent to Congress on the status 
of dam safety in the U.S. These reports are required by a 1979 
Presidential Memorandum which directed the Federal agencies responsible 
for dams to adopt and implement the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. 
MSHA has been criticized in these biennial reports for its lack of 
regulation of metal and nonmetal dams. MSHA's Metal and Nonmetal 
standards do not provide sufficient guidance to determine what is 
needed to effectively design and construct dams with high or 
significant hazard potential. The Metal and Nonmetal standards need to 
more effectively address requirements for dam design, construction, 
operation and maintenance.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine Improvement and 
New Emergency Response Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


MSHA is considering amendments, revisions, and additions to existing 
standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to

[[Page 64278]]

accompany any proposed rule that may be developed.


Risks:


The failure of impoundments can have a devastating affect on both the 
mine and nearby communities by causing loss of life and property 
damage.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


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-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




106. RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA STANDARD

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 56 to 57; 30 CFR 70 to 72; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Current standards limit exposures to quartz (crystalline silica) in 
respirable dust. The coal mining industry standard is based on the 
formula 10mg/m3 divided by the percentage of quartz where the quartz 
percent is greater than 5.0 percent calculated as an MRE equivalent 
concentration. The metal and nonmetal mining industry standard is based 
on the 1973 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values formula: 10 mg/m3 divided by the 
percentage of quartz plus 2. Overexposure to crystalline silica can 
result in some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible but 
preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be fatal. Both formulas 
are designed to limit exposures to 0.1 mg/m3 (100ug) of silica. The 
Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers made several recommendations 
related to reducing exposure to silica. NIOSH recommends a 50 ug/m3 
exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica, and ACGIH recommends 
a 25 ug/m3 exposure limit. MSHA will publish a proposed rule to address 
miners' exposure to respirable crystalline silica.


Statement of Need:


MSHA standards are outdated; current regulations may not protect 
workers from developing silicosis. Evidence indicates that miners 
continue to develop silicosis. MSHA's proposed regulatory action 
exemplifies the agency's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable 
populations while assuring broad-based compliance. MSHA will regulate 
to eliminate or reduce the hazards with the broadest and most serious 
consequences based on sound science. MSHA intends to use OSHA's work on 
the health effects and risk assessment, adapting it as necessary for 
the mining industry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this standard is authorized by sections 101 and 103 of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking would amend and improve health protection from that 
afforded by the existing standard. MSHA will consider alternative 
methods of addressing miners' exposure based on the capabilities of the 
sampling and analytical methods.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will prepare estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits 
associated with the proposed rule.


Risks:


For over 70 years, toxicology information and epidemiological studies 
have shown that exposure to respirable crystalline silica presents 
potential health risks to miners. These potential adverse health 
effects include simple silicosis, progressive massive fibrosis (lung 
scarring). Evidence indicates that exposure to silica may cause cancer. 
MSHA believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for 
reducing miners' exposure to respirable crystalline silica.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


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-AB36
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA



107. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO COAL MINE DUST (LOWERING EXPOSURE)

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


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


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 64279]]

Abstract:


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


Statement of Need:


Comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal mines were designed to 
reduce the incidence, and eventually eliminate, CWP and silicosis. 
While significant progress has been made toward improving the health 
conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners remain at risk of 
developing occupational lung disease, according to NIOSH. Recent NIOSH 
data indicates increased prevalence of CWP ``clusters'' in several 
geographical areas, particularly in the Southern Appalachian Region.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine Improvement and 
New Emergency Response Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


MSHA is considering amendments, revisions, and additions to existing 
standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to 
accompany the proposed rule.


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 workers' pneumoconiosis and 
silicosis, which are potentially disabling and can cause death. MSHA is 
pursuing both regulatory and nonregulatory actions to eliminate these 
diseases through the control of coal mine respirable dust levels in 
mines and reduction of miners' exposure. MSHA will develop a risk 
assessment to accompany the proposed rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


1219-AB14 (Verification of Underground Coal Mine Operators' Dust 
Control Plans and Compliance Sampling for Respirable Dust) and 1219-
AB18 (Determination of Concentration of Respirable Coal Mine Dust) have 
been integrated.


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-AA81, Related to 1219-AB14, Related to 
1219-AB18
RIN: 1219-AB64
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




108. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments.


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 50[micro]g/m3 and 25[micro]g/m3 
exposure limits, respectively, 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

[[Page 64280]]

also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These 
standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure 
monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.


Statement of Need:


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 
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 Cost 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
Initiate Peer Review of 
    Health Effects and 
    Risk Assessment             05/22/09
Complete Peer Review            01/00/10
NPRM                            07/00/10

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:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




109. HAZARD COMMUNICATION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 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 (U.S.), 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

[[Page 64281]]

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 long-standing 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 adopting the GHS into their national regulatory 
systems. 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.


Most importantly, comprehensibility of hazard information and worker 
safety 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. The increase 
in comprehensibility and consistency will reduce confusion and thus 
improve worker safety and health.


Several nations, including the European Union, have adopted the GHS 
with an implementation schedule through 2015. U.S. 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 Cost 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           11/19/07
NPRM                            09/30/09                    74 FR 50279
NPRM Comment Period End         12/29/09
Hearing                         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


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


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 N-3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AC20
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




110. CRANES AND DERRICKS IN CONSTRUCTION

Priority:


Economically 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

[[Page 64282]]

both work processes and crane technology have occurred. There are 
estimated to be 64 to 89 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 Cost 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 Comments 
    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                            10/09/08                    73 FR 59714
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    12/02/08                    73 FR 73197
NPRM Comment Period End         01/22/09
Public Hearing                  03/20/09
Close Record                    06/18/09
Final Rule                      07/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Noah Connell
Deputy Director, Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-3468
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
RIN: 1218-AC01
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S

[[Page 64283]]




DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)



Introduction: Department Overview and Summary 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. DOT regulates 
safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, 
commercial space, and pipeline transportation areas. DOT also regulates 
aviation consumer and economic issues and provides financial assistance 
for programs involving highways, airports, public transportation, the 
maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. The Department 
writes regulations to carry out a variety of statutes ranging from the 
Americans with Disabilities Act to the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT 
develops and implements a wide range of regulations that govern 
internal programs such as acquisitions 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.
This Plan identifies the Department's regulatory priorities--the 
fourteen pending rulemakings that the Department believes will merit 
special attention in the upcoming year. The rules included in the 
Regulatory Plan embody the Department's continuing focus on safety, 
consumer protection, environmental stewardship, and energy 
independence.
In order to prioritize these fourteen rulemakings from among the dozens 
in the Department's broad regulatory agenda, we 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
The Regulatory Plan reflects the Department's primary focus on safety--
a focus that extends across all modes of transportation.
 The airways: The Plan includes important initiatives by the 
            Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to enhance the safety 
            of our airways--including a proposed rulemaking to revise 
            rest requirements for commercial pilots.
 The roads: The Plan includes proposals by the Federal Motor 
            Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National 
            Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve 
            the safety of our roadways. FMCSA has initiated rulemakings 
            to strengthen the requirements for commercial drivers' 
            licenses and carrier fitness, while NHTSA is protecting the 
            passengers of the vehicles on America's roads through 
            proposed rules to prevent passenger ejection and to require 
            seat belts in buses.
 The railways: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will 
            implement Congress' directive to enhance the safety of our 
            nation's rail system through the introduction of positive 
            train control systems.
 Pipelines: The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety 
            Administration (PHMSA) will continue to enhance the 
            integrity of the pipeline distribution system.
The Plan also reflects the Department's focus on protecting the 
nation's environment and furthering our energy independence. NHTSA's 
proposed CAFE standards for 2012-2016 --a joint effort with the 
Environmental Protection Agency--is a milestone in that effort. This 
same focus is reflected in NHTSA's proposed rulemaking on tire fuel 
efficiency.
The Plan also contains a rulemaking designed to safeguard the interests 
of consumers flying the nation's skies by imposing limits on tarmac 
delays and chronically delayed flights.
Each of the rulemakings in the Regulatory Plan is described below in 
detail. In order to place them in context, we first review the 
Department's regulatory philosophy and our initiatives to educate and 
inform the public about transportation safety issues. We then describe 
the role in the Department's regulatory process and other important 
regulatory initiatives of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 
(OST) and of each of the Department's components. Since each 
transportation ``mode'' within the Department has its own area of 
focus, we summarize the regulatory priorities of each mode and of OST, 
which supervises and coordinates the modal initiatives, and is charged 
with consumer protection in the aviation industry.
The Department's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives
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.
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 policy leadership 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. This is 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. A 
few examples include: the Department's development of regulatory 
process and related training courses for its employees; its use 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

[[Page 64284]]

final rulemaking; the use of regulatory negotiation; an expanded 
internet page that provides important regulatory information, including 
``effects'' report and status reports (http://regs.dot.gov/); and 
consideration of the use of internet blogs to enhance public 
participation in its rulemaking process.
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 whether 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 either rules are completed in a timely 
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking 
system, a monthly status 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 quality 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.
Education and Outreach
The Department is committed to ensuring that the Administration's 
priorities related to transportation safety remain a paramount focus of 
its operation and has planned or initiated a variety of safety 
initiatives, summits and forums, throughout the country, that bring 
together senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety 
advocates, law enforcement representatives, private sector 
representatives and academics. Departmental initiatives include some of 
the following:
 Distracted Driving Summit - this Summit brought together 
            senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety 
            advocates, law enforcement representatives, private sector 
            representatives and academics to address a range of issues 
            related to reducing accidents through rulemaking and 
            enforcement, public awareness, and education. Authoritative 
            speakers from around the nation led interactive panel 
            discussions on a number of key topics including the extent 
            and impact of distracted driving, current research, 
            regulations, and best practices. Participants also examined 
            distractions caused by current and planned automotive 
            devices, such as navigational systems.
 Motorcoach Safety Action Plan - DOT agencies with 
            responsibility for motorcoach safety will develop an 
            integrated Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. The agencies will 
            take a fresh look at motorcoach safety issues, identify 
            actions to address outstanding safety problems, and develop 
            an aggressive multi-modal schedule to implement those 
            actions. The Department expects this strategy to result in 
            a reduction in the number of motorcoach crashes and 
            fatalities and injuries resulting from those crashes. Based 
            on analysis of the available safety data, the Department 
            assessed causes and contributing factors for motorcoach 
            crashes, fatalities and injuries, and identified 
            opportunities to enhance motorcoach safety. The plan would 
            provide an integrated strategy addressing a wide range of 
            issues including driver errors resulting from fatigue, 
            distraction, medical condition, and experience; crash 
            avoidance technologies; vehicle maintenance and safety; 
            carrier compliance; and measures to protect occupants in 
            the event of a crash, such as seat belts, enhanced vehicle 
            roof strength, fire safety, and emergency egress.
 Safety Performance Functions Summits - these summits provide a 
            platform for the exchange of information among a group of 
            stakeholders on the development and application of safety 
            models (called ``safety performance functions'') for 
            identifying highway locations that present the greatest 
            potential for safety improvement and for evaluating the 
            effectiveness of safety projects. The Federal Highway 
            Administration, thirty States, the American Association of 
            State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 
            Transportation Research Board, and academia were 
            represented at the summit. From the summit, a set of 
            actions were developed to support the wider deployment of 
            the safety performance functions that serve as underlying 
            foundation for new analysis tools being delivered to the 
            highway safety community. These summits are being held 
            throughout the country from January - December 2009.
 Towards Zero Fatalities: A Vision for Highway Safety - the 
            objective is to begin framing the strategic issues that 
            would need to be addressed to move the nation ``Toward Zero 
            Fatalities.'' FHWA has a contract with AASHTO to hold a 
            broad-based safety meeting in the spring of 2010. The 
            meeting is intended to attract safety professionals from 
            all across the nation and will provide us with a valuable 
            opportunity to connect with stakeholders, solicit their 
            input, and discuss the Department's safety initiatives.
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 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

[[Page 64285]]

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. 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 2010, OST will continue to focus its efforts on 
enhancing airline passenger protections by requiring carriers to adopt 
various consumer service practices (2105-AB92).
OST will also continue its efforts to help coordinate the activities of 
several operating administrations that advance various Departmental 
efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on promoting 
safety, stimulating the economy and creating jobs, sustaining and 
building America's transportation infrastructure, and improving 
livability for the people and communities who use transportation 
systems subject to the Department's policies.
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.
FAA top regulatory priorities for 2009-2010 include:
 Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
            equipment (2120-AI92)
 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 
            Dispatchers (2120-AJ00)
 Helicopter Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Safety 
            Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments (2120- AJ53)
 Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (2120-
            AJ58)
The ADS-B rulemaking would:
 Accommodate the expected increase in demand for air 
            transportation over the long run, as described in the Next 
            Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan;
 Provide the Federal Aviation Administration with a 
            comprehensive surveillance system that safely and 
            efficiently accommodates the anticipated increase in 
            operations; and
 Provide a platform for additional flight applications and 
            services in the future.
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking would:
 Reduce human error and improve performance among flight 
            crewmembers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers;
 Enhance traditional training programs by requiring the use of 
            flight simulation training devices for flight crewmembers; 
            and
 Include additional training requirements in areas critical to 
            safety.
The Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter rulemaking would:
 Codify current agency guidance and address National 
            Transportation Safety Board recommendations;
 Provide certificate holders and pilots with tools and 
            procedures that will aid in reducing accidents;
 Require additional equipment on board helicopters or air 
            ambulances; and
 Amend all part 135 commercial helicopter operations 
            regulations to include equipment requirements, pilot 
            training, and alternate airport weather minimums.
The Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements rulemaking 
would:
 Address fatigue mitigation and use existing fatigue science to 
            establish minimum rest periods, flight time limitations, 
            and duty period limits for flight crewmembers;
 Incorporate the use of Fatigue Risk Management Systems as an 
            option to provide operator flexibility for specific 
            operations; and
 Reduce human error attributed to fatigue among flight 
            crewmembers.
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.

[[Page 64286]]

FHWA continues to address a number of rules required by the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The remaining congressionally directed 
rulemakings resulting from this act include: Express Lane Demonstration 
Project (2125-AF07) and Real-Time System Management Information Program 
(2125-AF19). 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 this 
legislation
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 motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and State agencies 
receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial 
drivers' licenses.
FMCSA continues to develop regulations both mandated by Congress and 
initiated by the Agency to increase safety. FMCSA continues to address 
a significant number of rules required by its most recent 
reauthorization legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Agency 
is committed to promulgating the SAFETEA-LU mandated rules while 
continuing to make progress on a large and challenging rulemaking 
agenda.
FMCSA continues its work on the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 
2010). The CSA 2010 initiative 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 impacts of CSA 2010 
and its associated rulemakings, which includes the Carrier Safety 
Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11) rulemaking, will contribute 
further to the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related 
fatalities and injuries.
A major undertaking by FMCSA in FY2010 will be to begin a new 
rulemaking on Hours of Service as the result of a settlement agreement 
reached on October 26, 2009. Under terms of the settlement, FMCSA must 
submit a draft notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of 
Management and Budget within nine months.
FMCSA's Regulatory Plan for FY2010 includes completion of a number of 
final and proposed rules that are high priorities for the Agency 
because they would have a positive impact on safety. Among the 
rulemakings included in the plan are: (1) Restrictions on the use of 
wireless communication devices (RIN 2126-AB22) (2) Carrier Safety 
Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), (3) National Registry of 
Certified Medical Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97), and (4) Commercial 
Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standard (RIN 
2126-AB02).
Together these priority rules will help to substantially improve 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by 
improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers 
and drivers. For example, the restrictions on the use of wireless 
communication devices rulemaking would ban text messaging and restrict 
the use of cell phones while operating a commercial motor vehicle. The 
Commercial Driver's License Testing and Learner's Permit rulemaking 
would revise commercial driver's license testing and require new 
minimum Federal standards for States to issue commercial learner's 
permits. The National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 
rulemaking would establish training and testing requirements for 
healthcare professionals who issue medical certificates to truck and 
bus drivers.
In order to manage its rulemaking agenda, FMCSA continues to involve 
senior agency leaders at the earliest stages of its rulemakings, and 
continues to refine its regulatory development process. The Agency also 
holds senior executives accountable for meeting deadlines for 
completing rulemakings.
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, and will propose new 
performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of 
vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions in fiscal year 2010. 
NHTSA will propose amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
111, Rearview Mirrors, to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from 
backing accidents, in accordance with the Cameron Gultransen Kids 
Transportaion Safety Act of 2007. NHTSA will also publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking to require the installation of lap/shoulder belts 
in newly-manufactured motorcoaches in accordance with NHTSA's 2007 
Motorcoach Safety Plan and DOT's Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action 
Plan.
NHTSA will continue its efforts to reduce domestic dependency on 
foreign oil in accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act 
(EISA) of 2007 by publishing a final rule setting corporate average 
fuel economy (CAFE) standards for Model Years 2012-2016 for both cars 
and light trucks. NHTSA will also publish a final rule regarding tire 
fuel efficiency consumer information.
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

[[Page 64287]]

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 include: encouraging child 
safety-seat use; combating excessive speed and aggressive driving; 
improving motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and providing 
consumer information to the public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety and, where feasible, 
incorporates flexible performance standards. In order to foster an 
environment for collaborative rulemaking, the FRA established the 
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The purpose of the RSAC is 
to develop consensus recommendations for regulatory action on issues 
brought before it by the FRA. When consensus is achieved, and the FRA 
believes the recommendation serves the public's interest, the resulting 
rule, having been developed in a more transparent manner, is very 
likely to be better understood, more widely accepted, more cost-
beneficial, and more correctly applied. In situations, where consensus 
cannot be achieved, the FRA fulfills its regulatory role without the 
benefit of the RSAC's recommendations.
FRA's current regulatory program contains numerous mandates resulting 
from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08) as well as 
actions supporting the Department's High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. 
RSIA08 alone has resulted in at least 18 rulemaking actions, which are 
competing for limited resources to meet the short deadlines imposed by 
Congress. FRA has prioritized these rulemakings according to the 
greatest effect on safety, as well as expressed Congressional interest, 
and will work to complete as many rulemakings as possible prior their 
statutory deadlines. Revised timelines for completion of unfinished 
regulations will be forwarded to Congress for consideration. Through 
the RSAC, FRA is working to complete RSIA08 actions that include 
finalizing a Positive Train Control regulation, developing requirements 
for Train Conductor Certification, and determining hours of service for 
employees of intercity and commuter passenger rail service. RSAC-
supported actions that advance high-speed passenger rail include 
proposed revisions to the Track Safety Standards dealing with vehicle-
track interaction.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FTA helps communities support public transportation by issuing grants 
to eligible recipients for public transportation purposes, including 
planning, vehicle purchases, facility construction, operations, and 
other transit-related purposes. FTA regulatory activity focuses on 
establishing the terms and conditions that attach to Federal financial 
assistance available under Federal transit laws. FTA policy regarding 
regulations is to:
 implement statutes that provide the maximum benefit to our 
            nation's mobility and connectivity;
 provide local flexibility and discretion;
 ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
 protect taxpayer investments in public transportation assets;
 incorporate good management principles into the grant 
            management process; and
 provide transparency.
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 next authorization 
statutes, FTA expects to conduct a number of substantive rulemakings. A 
few rulemakings are likely to be mandated by statute, and others are 
likely necessary to amend current regulations to make them consistent 
with the next authorization statutes. FTA's regulatory priorities for 
the coming year will be reflective of the directives and programmatic 
priorities established by the authorization statutes, including, 
notably, FTA's School Bus regulation, New Starts regulation, and State 
Safety Oversight regulation. FTA also anticipates revising its Project 
Management Oversight regulation.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and 
programs designed to promote and maintain a U.S. merchant marine 
capable of meeting the Nation's shipping needs for both national 
security and domestic and foreign commerce.
MARAD administers the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA, 33 
U.S.C. Sec.  1501 et seq.), which established a licensing system for 
ownership, construction, and operation of oil and natural gas deepwater 
port (DWP) structures located seaward of U.S. territorial waters. The 
DWPA authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation the 
Maritime Administration, to issue licenses for deepwater ports.
By its delegated authority, MARAD is responsible for determining the 
financial capability of potential licensees, rendering citizenship 
determinations for ownership, and securing operational and 
decommissioning guarantees for deepwater port projects. In concert with 
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and other cooperating Federal agencies, 
MARAD prepares a Record of Decision (ROD) for each application. Through 
the administration of the DWPA, the Maritime Administration plays a 
vital role in meeting Presidential energy directives, protecting the 
environment, building local economies, and improving mobility, safety, 
and security in our Nation's oceans and ports.
MARAD's other 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.
Before the end of 2009, the Agency will issue a final rule regarding 
the America's Marine Highway program that is in response to the 
enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (PL. 110-
140). The ACT directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 
short sea transportation program and designate short sea transportation 
projects to mitigate landside congestion. Finally, during FY 2010, 
MARAD will focus on revising its cargo preference regulations.
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

[[Page 64288]]

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 
all transportation modes, including pipeline. 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 to assess data; evaluate alternative safety 
strategies, including regulatory strategies as necessary and 
appropriate; target enforcement efforts; and enhance outreach, public 
education, and training to promote safety outcomes.
PHMSA will continue to 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 
(2137-AE32). To enhance aviation safety, PHMSA and FAA are seeking to 
identify cost-effective solutions that can be implemented to reduce 
incident rates and potentially detrimental consequences without placing 
unnecessary burdens on the regulated community. To this end, PHMSA and 
FAA are developing regulatory revisions to enhance the safe 
transportation of lithium batteries on board aircraft (2137-AE44). In 
addition, PHMSA is working with FAA to assess safety risks associated 
with the transportation by aircraft of hazardous materials in non-bulk 
packagings. To address the risks posed by the bulk transportation of 
high-risk hazardous materials, PHMSA is considering the development of 
enhanced safety measures governing bulk loading and unloading 
operations (2137-AE37).
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 (2137-
AE39). We will continue to review regulatory standards to ensure they 
are necessary, easy to understand, contemporary, and enforceable.
In the fall of 2009, PHMSA will complete its integrity management 
initiative by finalizing risk-based integrity management regulations 
applicable to gas distribution pipelines.
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:
 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, Office of Airline 
Information, RITA collects, compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible 
information on the Nation's air 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 that are used in supporting policy initiatives and 
administering the Department's mandated aviation responsibilities, 
including negotiating international bilateral aviation agreements, 
awarding international route authorities, performing airline and 
industry status evaluations, supporting air service to small 
communities, setting Alaskan Bush Mail rates, and meeting international 
treaty obligations.
Through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office 
(ITS/JPO), RITA conducts research and demonstrations, and, as 
appropriate, may develop new regulations, 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.

[[Page 64289]]



             QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS
                  ON THE 2009-2010 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 2007  Discounted 2007
                                                                                  $ (Millions)     $ (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2105-AD72   Enhancing Airline Passenger                      FR 02/10              5.6             14.1
                     Protections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2105-AD92   Enhancing Airline Passenger                    NPRM 06/10              TBD              TBD
                     Protections -- Part 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for OST                                             5.6             14.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AI92   Automatic Dependent Surveillance -               FR 04/10            1,600            1,000
                     Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AJ00   Qualification, Service, and Use of            SNPRM 04/10              TBD              TBD
                     Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AJ53   Helicopter Air Ambulance and                   NPRM 06/10              TBD              TBD
                     Commercial Helicopter Safety
                     Initiatives and Miscellaneous
                     Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AJ58   Flight and Duty Time Limitations and           NPRM 12/09              TBD              TBD
                     Rest Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total for FAA                                          1,600            1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA97   National Registry of Certified                 NPRM 05/10              587            1,034
                     Medical Examiners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB02   Commercial Driver's Licenses and                 FR 04/10               65              231
                     Learner's Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB11   Carrier Safety Fitness Determination           NPRM 01/10              TBD              TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB22   Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles:          NPRM 09/10              TBD              TBD
                     Limiting the Use of Wireless
                     Communication Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for FMCSA                                            652            1,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK23   Ejection Mitigation                            NPRM 12/09              583            1,158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK43   Federal Motor Vehicles Safety                  NPRM 04/10              TBD              TBD
                     Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK45   Tire Fuel Efficiency                             FR 12/09               51              202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK50   CAFE 2012-2016                                   FR 04/10           60,157          201,676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK56   Motorcoach Occupant Crash Protection           NPRM 03/10             25.8            107.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for NHTSA                                         60,817          203,144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           2130-AC03Positive Train Control                           FR 01/10            9,575              584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for FRA                                           9,575              584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2137-AE15   Pipeline Safety: Distribution                    FR 11/09            1,484            2,691
                     Integrity Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for PHMSA                                          1,484            2,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 64290]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Quantifiable     Quantifiable
Agency/RIN  Number                                                                   Costs           Benefits
                                    Title                         Stage         Discounted 2007  Discounted 2007
                                                                                  $ (Millions)     $ (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            MARAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2133-AB74   Regulations To Be Followed by All              NPRM 09/10              TBD              TBD
                     Departments, Agencies and Shippers
                     Having Responsibility To Provide a
                     Preference for U.S.-Flag Vessels in
                     the Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean
                     Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2133-AB75   Cargo Preference -- Compromise,                NPRM 03/10              TBD              TBD
                     Assessment, Mitigation, Settlement &
                     Collection of Civil Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for MARAD                                              0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 TOTAL FOR DOT                                        74,133.6       208,698.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
  $5.8 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.
 

_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




111.  [rplus]ENHANCING AIRLINE PASSENGER PROTECTIONS -- PART 2

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 41712; 49 USC 40101(a)(4); 49 USC 40101(a)(9); 49 USC 41702


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would enhance airline passenger protections by 
addressing the following areas: (1) contingency plans for lengthy 
tarmac delays; (2) reporting of tarmac delay data; (3) customer service 
plans; (4) notification to passengers of flight status changes; (5) 
inflation adjustment for denied boarding compensation; (6) alternative 
transportation for passengers on canceled flights; (7) opt-out 
provisions (e.g. travel insurance); (8) contract of carriage 
provisions; (9) baggage fees disclosure; and (10) full fare 
advertising.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to improve the air travel environment for 
passengers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Department has authority and responsibility under 49 USC 41712 in 
concert with 49 USC 40101(a)(4) and 40101(a)(9) and 49 USC 41702, to 
protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure 
safe and adequate service in air transportation.


Alternatives:


The main alternative would be to take no regulatory action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined


Risks:


The risk of not taking regulatory action would be a continuation of the 
dissatisfaction and frustration passengers have with the air travel 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Blane A Workie
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-9342
TDD Phone: 202 755-7687
Fax: 202 366-7152
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2105-AD92
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--OST

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




112. [rplus]ENHANCING AIRLINE PASSENGER PROTECTIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 329


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 234; 14 CFR 399


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would propose to enhance airline passenger protections 
in the following ways: (1) require carriers to adopt contingency plans 
for lengthy tarmac delays and to incorporate these plans in their 
contracts of carriage, (2) require carriers

[[Page 64291]]

to respond to consumer problems, (3) declare the operation of flights 
that remain chronically delayed to be an unfair and deceptive practice 
and an unfair method of competition, (4) require carriers to publish 
delay data on their web sites, and (5) require carriers to adopt 
customer service plans, incorporate these in their contracts of 
carriage, and audit their adherence to their plans.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to provide consumers with more information and 
protections to minimize the adverse consequences of air travel delays 
and cancellations. The Department's Office of the Inspector General has 
recommended that the Department take specific action to improve the air 
travel environment for passengers and Congress has proposed legislation 
to improve airline passenger protections.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Department has authority and responsibility under 49 USC 41712, in 
concert with 49 USC 40101(a)(4) and 40101(a)(9) and 49 USC 41702, to 
protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure 
safe and adequate service in air transportation.


Alternatives:


The main alternative would be to take no regulatory action to address 
the increasing number of passengers who are dissatisfied with airline 
service as a result of recent marathon tarmac waits and the epidemic of 
flight delays, and to rely on the airlines to regulate themselves.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule is estimated to cost $5.6 million and result in benefits of 
$14.1 million per year (at a 7 percent discount rate).


Risks:


The risk of not taking regulatory action would be a continuation of the 
dissatisfaction and frustration passengers have with the air travel 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/20/07                    72 FR 65233
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/22/08
Clarification Concerning 
    ANPRM                       03/05/08                    73 FR 11843
NPRM                            12/08/08                    73 FR 74586
NPRM Comment Period End         02/06/09
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    02/06/09                     74 FR 6249
NPRM Extended Comment 
    Period End                  03/09/09
Final Rule                      02/00/10

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:
Blane A Workie
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-9342
TDD Phone: 202 755-7687
Fax: 202 366-7152
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2105-AD72
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




113. [rplus]QUALIFICATION, SERVICE, AND USE OF CREWMEMBERS AND AIRCRAFT 
DISPATCHERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701; 
49 USC 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 
44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 49 USC 44903; 49 USC 
44904; 49 USC 44912; 49 USC 46105


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 119; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 142; 14 CFR 65


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations for crewmember and 
dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental 
operations. The rulemaking would enhance traditional training programs 
by requiring the use of flight simulation training devices for flight 
crewmembers and including additional training requirements in areas 
that are critical to safety. The rulemaking would also reorganize and 
revise the qualification and training requirements. The changes are 
intended to contribute significantly to reducing aviation accidents.


Statement of Need:


 This rulemaking is part of the FAA?s efforts to reduce fatal accidents 
in which human error was a major contributing cause. The changes would 
reduce human error and improve performance among flight crewmembers, 
flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) investigations identified several areas of 
inadequate training that were the probable cause of an accident. This 
rulemaking contains changes to address the causes and factors 
identified by the NTSB.


Summary of Legal Basis:


 The FAA?s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated 
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires 
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for 
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air 
commerce and national security.


Alternatives:


During the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) phase, the FAA did not 
find any significant alternatives in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec.  
603(d). The FAA will again review alternatives at the final rule phase.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The FAA will develop the costs and benefits of this rulemaking after 
reviewing the comments received in response to the NPRM.


Risks:


The FAA will review specific risks associated with this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/12/09                     74 FR 1280

[[Page 64292]]

Comment Period End              05/12/09
Notice of Public Meeting        03/12/09                    74 FR 10689
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    04/20/09                    74 FR 17910
Extended Comment Period 
    End                         08/10/09
SNPRM                           04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


For flight crewmember information contact Edward Cook, for flight 
attendant information contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, and for aircraft 
dispatcher information contact David Maloy, Air Carrier Training Branch 
(AFS-210), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267 
8166.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Edward Cook
Flight Standards Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30354
Phone: 404-832-4700
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AJ00
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA



114.  [rplus]AIR AMBULANCE AND COMMERCIAL HELICOPTER 
OPERATIONS; SAFETY INITIATIVES AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44702; 
49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 44713; 
49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 45101; 
49 USC 45102; 49 USC 45103; 49 USC 45104; 49 USC 45105


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would change equipment and operating requirements for 
commercial helicopter operations, including many specifically for 
helicopter air ambulance operations. This rulemaking is necessary to 
increase crew, passenger, and patient safety. The intended effect is to 
implement the National Transportation Safety Board, Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee and internal FAA recommendations.


Statement of Need:


Since 2002, there has been an increase in fatal helicopter air 
ambulance accidents. The FAA has undertaken initiatives to address 
common factors that contribute to helicopter air ambulance accidents 
including issuing notices, handbook bulletins, operations 
specifications, and advisory circulars (ACs). This rule would codify 
many of those initiatives, as well as several NTSB and Part 125/135 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations. In addition, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation in the 111th 
Congress and in earlier sessions that would address several of the 
issues raised in this rulemaking.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 
U.S.C. 44701(a)(4), which requires the Administrator to promulgate 
regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods 
of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 
44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations 
and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures 
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.


Alternatives:


The FAA is currently reviewing alternatives to rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The FAA is currently developing costs and benefits.


Risks:


Helicopter air ambulance operations have several characteristics that 
make them unique, including that they are not limited to airport 
locations for picking up and dropping off patients, but may pick up a 
person at a roadside accident scene and transport him or her directly 
to a hospital. Helicopter air ambulance operations are also often time-
sensitive. A helicopter air ambulance flight may be crucial to getting 
a donor organ or critically ill or injured patient to a medical 
facility as efficiently as possible. Additionally, patients generally 
are not able to choose the helicopter air ambulance company that 
provides them with transportation. Despite the fact that there are 
unique aspects to helicopter air ambulance operations, they remain, at 
their core, air transportation. Accordingly, the FAA has the 
responsibility for ensuring the safety of these operations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

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:
Edwin Miller
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202-267-8166
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AJ53
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA



115.  [rplus]FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST 
REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 64293]]

Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709; 
49 USC 44710; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 44715; 
49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 45101; 49 USC 45102; 
49 USC 45103; 49 USC 45104; 49 USC 45105; 49 USC 46105


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would establish one set of flight time limitations, duty 
period limits, and rest requirements for pilots. The rule is necessary 
to ensure that pilots have the opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to 
perform their duties. The objective of the rule is to contribute to an 
improved aviation safety system.


Statement of Need:


The FAA recognizes that the effects of pilot fatigue are universal, and 
the profiles of different types of operations are similar enough that 
the same fatigue mitigations should be applied across all types of 
operations.


In June 2009, the FAA established the Flight and Duty Time Limitations 
and Rest Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) whose 
membership includes labor, industry, and FAA representatives. The ARC 
will review current approaches to mitigating fatigue and make 
recommendations to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in 
September 2009 on how to address this issue in FAA regulations.


The ARC will consider:


-- An approach to fatigue that consolidates and replaces existing 
regulatory requirements;


-- Current fatigue science, data, and information;


-- How current international standards address fatigue; and


-- The use of Fatigue Risk Management Systems.


Based on ARC recommendations, the FAA will propose new regulations 
using scientific research data, developing methods for data collection 
and analysis, reviewing fatigue-related accident data, and using 
relevant NTSB recommendations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 
49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the 
authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other 
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce 
and national security.


Alternatives:


The FAA is currently reviewing alternatives to rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule is designated as ``significant regulatory action'' as 
designated in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. In addition, the 
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Quantifiable costs and benefits to be 
determined.


Risks:


The FAA will review specific risks associated with this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Nancy L Claussen
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-8166
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AJ58
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




116. [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 ; 49 USC 47122; 49 
USC 47508; 49 USC 47528 to 47531; 49 USC 106(g); Articles 12 and 29 of 
61 Stat.1180; 49 USC 46507


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 tasked the FAA with creating the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate the 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

[[Page 64294]]

grow. ADS-B is a key component of NextGen that will move air traffic 
control from a radar-based system to satellite-derived aircraft 
location data.


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) for 
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the 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) Radar as it exists today -- Radars have different update rates, 
accuracies, ranges, and functions. ADS-B, however, employs one type of 
receiving equipment, and it does not have to accommodate for transition 
between differing surveillance systems.


 (2) Multilateration -- Multilateration is a non-radar system that has 
limited deployment in the United States. Multilateration is a process 
by which an aircraft's position is determined by measuring the time 
difference between the arrival of the aircraft's signal to multiple 
receivers on the ground. 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.


 The FAA rejected both of these alternatives. The agency has determined 
that the improved accuracy and update rate afforded by ADS-B provides 
an opportunity to make the system more efficient. Specifically, 
enhanced surveillance data via ADS-B will improve the performance of 
air traffic control (ATC) decision support tools that rely on 
surveillance data to make predictions. Unlike radar and 
multilateration, ADS-B provides more detailed flight information (for 
example, update rate, velocity, and heading) that supports ground based 
merging and spacing tools. The tools use this information to determine 
optimal tracks for ATC arrival planning.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The FAA is currently developing costs and benefits.


Risks:


Congestion continues to build in the nation?s busiest airports and the 
surrounding airspace. The FAA must be poised to handle future demand 
that is certain to grow as the Nation's economy improves. In addition, 
the current method of handling traffic flow will not be able to adapt 
to future operations as future aviation activity will be more diverse 
than it is today.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/05/07                    72 FR 56947
NPRM Comment Period End         11/19/07
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/03/08
Comment Period End              03/03/08
Reopened for Comments on 
    ARAC Recommendation         10/02/08                    73 FR 57270
Comment Period End              11/03/08
Final Rule                      04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


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 Avene, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202-385-8637
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2120-AI92
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




117. [rplus]CARRIER SAFETY FITNESS DETERMINATION

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Section 4009 of TEA-21


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise 49 CFR part 385, Safety Fitness 
Procedures, in accordance with the Agency's major new initiative, 
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010. CSA 2010 is a new operational 
model FMCSA plans to implement that is designed to help the Agency 
carry out its compliance and enforcement programs more efficiently and 
effectively. Currently, the safety fitness rating of a motor carrier is 
determined based on the results of a very labor intensive compliance 
review conducted at the carrier's place of business. Aside from 
roadside inspections and new audits, the compliance review is the 
Agency's primary intervention. Under CSA 2010, FMCSA would propose to 
implement a broader array of progressive interventions, some of which 
allow FMCSA to make contact with more carriers. Through this rulemaking 
FMCSA would establish safety fitness determinations based on safety 
data consisting of crashes, inspections, and violation history rather 
than the standard compliance review. This will enable the Agency to 
assess the safety performance of a greater segment of the motor carrier 
industry with the goal of further reducing large truck and bus crashes 
and fatalities.


Statement of Need:


Because of the time and expense associated with the on-site compliance 
review, only a small fraction of carriers (approximately 12,000) 
receive a safety fitness determination each year. Since the current 
safety fitness determination

[[Page 64295]]

process is based exclusively on the results of an on site compliance 
review, the great majority of carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction do 
not receive a timely determination of their safety fitness.


 The proposed methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness 
should correct the deficiencies of the current process. In correcting 
these deficiencies, FMCSA has made a concerted effort to develop a 
``transparent'' method for the SFD that would allow each motor carrier 
to understand fully how FMCSA established that carrier's specific SFD.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is based primarily on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to ``determine whether an owner 
or operator is fit to operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to 
``maintain by regulation a procedure for determining the safety fitness 
of an owner or operator.'' This statute was first enacted as part of 
the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, Sec.  215, Pub. L. 98-554, 98 
Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984).


 The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, 
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in 
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
now found in chapter 311 of Title 49, U.S.C. These powers include, 
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations, 
compile statistics, require production of records and property, 
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to perform other 
acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the data 
used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new 
methodology for safety fitness determinations.


 Under 49 CFR 1.73(g), the Secretary has delegated the authority to 
carry out the functions in subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, 
title 49, U.S.C., to the FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 
are part of subchapter III of chapter 311.


Alternatives:


The Agency has been considering only two alternatives: the no-action 
alternative and the proposal.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the costs and benefits at this time.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
David Miller
Regulatory Development Division
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-AB11
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA



118.  [rplus]DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES: LIMITING THE 
USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 31136; 49 USC 31502


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 367


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would ban text messaging and restrict the use of cell 
phones while operating a commercial motor vehicle. This rulemaking is 
in response to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration-sponsored 
studies that analyzed safety incidents and distracted drivers. This 
rulemaking would also address the National Transportation Safety 
Board's ``Most Wanted List'' of safety recommendations.


Statement of Need:


TBD


Summary of Legal Basis:


TBD


Alternatives:


TBD


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FMCSA has not fully assessed the costs and benefits that might be 
associated with this activity.


Risks:


FMCSA has not fully assessed the risk that might be associated with 
this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


URL For More Information:
regs.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
regs.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Thomas Yager
Driver and Carrier Operations Division, MC-PSD
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4325
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2126-AB22
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FMCSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




119. [rplus]NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 64296]]

Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


PL 109-59 (2005), sec 4116


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 10, 2006, Final Rule.


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 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users.


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 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 
ensuring that medical examiners have completed training and testing to 
demonstrate that they fully understand FMCSA's physical qualifications 
standards and are capable of applying those standards consistently, 
thereby decreasing the likelihood that a medically unqualified driver 
may obtain a medical certificate.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The fundamental legal basis for the NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C. 
31149(d), which requires FMCSA to establish and maintain a current 
national registry of medical examiners that are qualified to perform 
examinations of CMV drivers and to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is 
required 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. 31136(a).


Alternatives:


The rulemaking is statutorily mandated. Thus, the Agency must establish 
the National Registry.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimated 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $586,969,000, 
total benefits at $1,033,681,000, and net benefits over 10 years at 
$446,712,000.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/01/08                    73 FR 73129
NPRM Comment Period End         01/30/09
Final Rule                      05/00/10

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
Director, Office of Medical Programs
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



120. [rplus]COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE TESTING AND COMMERCIAL 
LEARNER'S PERMIT STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 109-347, sec 703; 49 USC 31102; PL 105-178, 112 stat 414 (1998); PL 
99-570, title XII, 100 Stat.3207 (1086); PL 102-240, sec 4007(a)(1), 
Stat. 1914, 2151; PL 109-59 (2005), sec 4122; 49 USC 31136


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384; 49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 13, 2008, Final Rule.


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,

[[Page 64297]]

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 Cost and Benefits:


We estimate 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $65,079,000, 
total benefits at $231,264,000, and net benefits over 10 years at 
$166,185,000.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/09/08                    73 FR 19282
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    06/09/08                    73 FR 32520
NPRM Comment Period End         06/09/08
Second NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  07/09/08
Final Rule                      04/00/10

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:
Robert Redmond
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5014
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB00
RIN: 2126-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




121. [rplus]EJECTION MITIGATION

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 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.226


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 2009, Final Rule. Extended via Letter to 
Congress to January 31, 2011.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) for reducing occupant ejection. Currently, there are 
over 52,000 annual ejections in motor vehicle crashes, and over 10,000 
ejected fatalities per year. This rulemaking would propose new 
requirements for reducing occupant ejection through passenger vehicle 
side widows. The requirement would be an occupant containment 
requirement on the amount of allowable excursion through passenger 
vehicle side windows. The SAFETEA-LU legislation requires that: ``[t]he 
Secretary shall also initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish 
performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of 
vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions. In formulating the 
standards the Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation 
systems. The Secretary shall issue a final rule under this paragraph no 
later than October 1, 2009.''


Statement of Need:


The agency's annualized injury data from 1997 to 2005 show that there 
are 6,174 fatalities and 5,271 Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 
3+ non-fatal serious injuries for occupants partially and completely 
ejected through side windows in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.). Sixty-seven percent of 
the fatalities and 78 percent of the serious injuries are from 
ejections that involve a rollover as part of the crash event.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Section 10301 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary to issue by October 1, 
2009, an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial 
ejections of occupants from outboard seating positions. The SAFETEA-LU 
legislation also requires that if the Secretary determines that the 
subject final rule deadline cannot be met, the Secretary shall notify 
and provide an explanation of the delay to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. On September 24, 2009, the Secretary 
provided appropriate notification to Congress that the final rule would 
be delayed until January 31, 2011.

[[Page 64298]]

Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to reduce side window 
ejections of light vehicle occupants other than establishing FMVSS No. 
226.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The agency is reducing the population of partial and complete side 
window ejections through a series of rulemaking actions. These actions 
included adding a pole impact upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 -- Side Impact 
Protection (72 FR 51908) and promulgating FMVSS No. 126 -- Electronic 
Stability Control Systems (72 FR 17236). We estimate that promulgating 
FMVSS No. 226 will reduce the remaining population of ejection 
fatalities and serious injuries by the ranges of 390 to 402 and 296 to 
310, respectively. The cost per equivalent fatality at a seven percent 
discount rate is estimated to be $2.0 million.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
reduce side window ejections of light vehicle occupants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Louis Molino
Safety Standards Engineer
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1833
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AK23
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA



122. [rplus]FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLES SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111, REARVIEW 
MIRRORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 
Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.111


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, February 28, 2009, Initiate Rulemaking.


Final, Statutory, February 28, 2011, Publish Final Rule.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 111, 
Rearview Mirrors, to reflect requirements contained in the Cameron 
Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The Act requires 
that NHTSA expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a 
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death 
and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents 
involving small children and disabled persons. According to the Act, 
such a standard may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, 
sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand the driver's field of 
view.


Statement of Need:


Vehicles that are backing up have a potential to create a danger to 
pedestrians and pedicyclists. NHTSA estimates that backover crashes 
involving light vehicles account for an estimated 228 fatalities and 
17,000 injuries annually. In analyzing the data further, we found that 
many of these incidents occur off public roadways, in areas such as 
driveways and parking lots and that they involve parents (or 
caregivers) accidentally backing over children. We have also found that 
children represent approximately 44 percent of the fatalities, which we 
believe to be unique to this safety problem.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 3011, title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


NHTSA is evaluating additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, and other 
technology to address this safety problem.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs: $1.9 to 2.7 billion.


Benefit: Reduction by 95 to 112 fatalities.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/04/09                     74 FR 9477
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/04/09
NPRM                            04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
David Hines
General 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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AK43

[[Page 64299]]

_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA



123.  [rplus]REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF SEAT BELTS ON 
MOTORCOACHES, FMVSS NO. 208

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 49 
CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.208; 49 CFR 571.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require the installation of lap/shoulder belts in 
newly-manufactured motorcoaches. Specifically, this rulemaking would 
establish a new definition for motorcoaches in 49 CFR Part 571.3. It 
would also amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 
``Occupant crash protection,'' to require the installation of lap/
shoulder belts at all driver and passenger seating positions. It would 
also require the installation of lap/shoulder belts at driver seating 
positions of large school buses in FMVSS No. 208. This rulemaking 
responds, in part, to recommendations made by the National 
Transportation Safety Board for improving bus safety.


Statement of Need:


Over the ten-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal 
motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities. During this period, on 
average, 16 fatalities have occurred annually to occupants of 
motorcoaches in crash and rollover events, with about 2 of these 
fatalities being drivers and 14 being passengers. However, while 
motorcoach transportation overall is safe, when serious crashes of this 
vehicle type do occur, they can cause a significant number of fatal or 
serious injuries during a single event, particularly when occupants are 
ejected.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


In addition to the proposed installation of seat belts in all passenger 
seating positions on motorcoaches, the agency is also pursuing 
improvements to motorcoach roof strength, fire safety, and emergency 
egress to improve occupant protection. Our detailed plan for improving 
motorcoach passenger protection can be found in NHTSA's Approach to 
Motorcoach Safety 2007 (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TBD


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
reduce injuries of motorcoach occupants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
David Sutula
Safety Standards Engineer
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-3273
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AK56
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




124.  [rplus]TIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY CONSUMER INFORMATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 32304


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 575.105


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009, Publish Final Rule.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish a new program that would make 
information about the relative rolling resistance of tires available to 
purchasers of replacement tires and educate consumers about the effect 
of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The 
agency is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
to establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information 
program for replacement tires designed for use on motor vehicles. 
Vehicle manufacturers often use low rolling resistance tires on new 
vehicles to help meet CAFE goals. This rulemaking is significant 
because it has a statutory mandate and it relates to fuel efficiency.


Statement of Need:


The agency is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 to establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information 
program for replacement tires designed for use on motor vehicles that 
would make information about the relative rolling resistance of tires 
available to purchasers of replacement tires and educate consumers 
about the effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and 
durability. Vehicle manufacturers often use low rolling resistance 
tires on new vehicles to help meet CAFE goals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; Pub. L. 110-
140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 18, 2007) requires NHTSA to develop a 
national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program to educate 
consumers about the effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, 
safety, and durability.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The annual cost of NHTSA's proposal is estimated to be between $18.9 
and $52.8 million. This includes testing costs of $22,500, reporting 
costs of around $113,000, labeling costs of

[[Page 64300]]

around $9 million, costs to the Federal government of $1.28 million, 
and costs of between $8.4 and $42 million to improve tires. In 
addition, NHTSA anticipates one-time costs of around $4 million, 
including initial testing costs of $3.7 million and reporting start-up 
costs of $280,000.


 It is hoped that the proposed rule will have benefits in terms of fuel 
economy, safety and durability. Because the agency cannot foresee 
precisely how much the consumer information program will affect 
consumer tire purchasing behavior, driving the market for improved 
tires, NHTSA made estimates based on hypothetical assumptions that 2% 
and 10% of tires would improve. Under these assumptions, the rule would 
save 7.9-78 million gallons of fuel annually. The values of the fuel 
savings are between $22 and $220 million at a 3 percent discount rate 
and between $20 and $203 million at a 7 percent discount rate.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as it will drive the 
market for more fuel efficient tires.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/22/09                    74 FR 29541
NPRM Comment Period End         08/21/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mary Versailles
Office of Planning and Consumer Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-2057
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AK45
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA



125.  [rplus]PASSENGER CAR AND LIGHT TRUCK CORPORATE AVERAGE 
FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS MYS 2012-2016

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 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 533


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 1, 2010, Final rule for Model Year 2012.


Abstract:


This joint NHTSA/EPA rulemaking would establish a National Program 
consisting of new standards for light-duty vehicles that will reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. This rulemaking 
would be consistent with the National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced 
by President Obama on May 19, 2009, responding to the country's 
critical need to address global climate change and to reduce oil 
consumption. EPA is proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under 
the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended. These standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 
and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 
2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average 
emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in MY 2016 under EPA's GHG 
program, and 34.1 mpg in MY 2016 under NHTSA's CAFE program and 
represent a harmonized and consistent national program (National 
Program). Under the National Program, the overall light-duty vehicle 
fleet would reach 35.5 mpg in MY 2016, if all reductions were made 
through fuel economy improvements. The Program would result in 
approximately 950 million metric tons of CO2 emission reductions and 
approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil savings over the lifetime of 
vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016.


This rulemaking action was inadvertently published under RIN 2127-AK90.


Statement of Need:


NHTSA is required by statute to establish the CAFE standard for a model 
year not later than 18 months before its beginning, and thus must 
publish the final rule for model year 2012 on or before April 1, 2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 32910(d) of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that 
the Administrator may prescribe regulations necessary to carry out his 
duties under Chapter 329, Automobile fuel economy.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs and benefits of the potential changes 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 most recent 
NHTSA analysis (2003) indicated that the association between vehicle 
weight and overall crash fatality rates in heavier MY 1991-99 light 
trucks and vans was not significant. However, for three other groups of 
MY 1991-99 vehicles - the lighter LTVs (light trucks and vans), the 
heavier cars, and especially the lighter cars - fatality rates 
increased as weights decreased.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/28/09                    74 FR 49454
Notice of Public Hearing        10/06/09                    74 FR 51252
NPRM Comment Period End         11/27/09
Final Rule                      04/00/10

[[Page 64301]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Energy Effects:


 Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by Executive Order 
13211.


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Julie Abraham
Director
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-1455
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2060-AP58
RIN: 2127-AK50
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




126.  [rplus]POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-432, Section 104 (Codified at 49 USC 20157); Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 236


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would regulate the submission of Positive Train Control 
plans; the implementation of the Positive Train Control Systems; and 
the qualification, installation, maintenance and use of the these 
systems required under 49 USC 20157 or specifically required by the 
Federal Railroad Administration.


Statement of Need:


Required by the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-
423.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Required by the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-
423.


Alternatives:


 The Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 does not permit FRA to 
exercise discretion in requiring the installation of PTC systems on 
railroads operating on the affected network.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 does not permit FRA to 
exercise discretion in requiring the installation of PTC systems on 
railroads operating on the affected network. All costs and benefits 
that follow are 20 year costs and benefits, discounted at 7% per year. 
FRA estimates that it will cost between $3 billion and $7 billion to 
install PTC on passenger railroads, and between $10 billion and $20 
billion to install PTC on Class 1 freight railroads. FRA estimates that 
the benefit of reduced accidents on railroads will be about $800 
million, however the net impact on safety could be adverse if shippers 
and passengers divert to highway transportation.


Risks:


The advantages of PTC technology will significantly improve the safety 
and performance of train operations, significantly reducing the risk of 
train accidents. Under the statute, required PTC systems will be 
designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, 
and incursions into roadway worker work limits.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/21/09                    74 FR 35950
NPRM Comment Period End         08/20/09
Final Rule                      01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Kathryn Shelton
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6063
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2130-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




127. [rplus]PIPELINE SAFETY: DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 5103; 49 USC 60104; 49 USC 60102; 49 USC 60108 to 60110; 49 USC 
60113; 49 USC 60118; 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 mandate 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

[[Page 64302]]

(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 Cost and Benefits:


The monetized benefits resulting from the rulemaking are estimated to 
be $214 million per year. The costs of the rulemaking 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                            06/25/08                    73 FR 36015
Extended NPRM Comment 
    Period End 10/23/08         09/12/08                    73 FR 52938
NPRM Comment Period End         09/23/08
Final Rule                      12/00/09

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

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--Maritime Administration (MARAD)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




128. [rplus]REGULATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, 
AND SHIPPERS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A PREFERENCE FOR U.S.-
FLAG VESSELS IN THE SHIPMENT OF CARGOES ON OCEAN VESSELS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 CFR 1.66; 46 App USC 1101; 46 App USC 1241; 46 USC 2302 (e)(1); PL 
91-469


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise and clarify the Cargo Preference rules 
that have not been revised substantially since 1971. Revisions would 
include an updated purpose and definitions section along with the 
removal of obsolete provisions.


Statement of Need:


On September 4, 2009, the USDA, MARAD, and USAID entered into a MOU 
regarding the proper implementation of the Cargo Preference Act. The 
MOU establishes procedures and standards by which owners and operators 
of oceangoing cargo ships may seek to designate each of their vessels 
as either a dry bulk carrier or a dry cargo liner, according to 
specified service-based criteria. With the help of OMB, these agencies 
are in the process of negotiating updates to the comprehensive cargo 
preference rule, which has not been significantly changed since 1971.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Cargo Preference Act requires that Federal agencies take necessary 
and practicable steps to ensure that privately-owned US flag vessels 
transport at least 50 percent of the gross tonnage of cargo sponsored 
under Federal programs to the extent such vessels are available at fair 
and reasonable rates for commercial vessels of the US, in a manner that 
will ensure a fair and reasonable participation of commercial vessels 
of the US in those cargoes by geographic areas. 46 USC 55305(b). An 
additional 25 percent of gross tonnage of certain food assistance 
programs is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of 46 
USC 55314.


Alternatives:


TBD


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TBD


Risks:


TBD


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10

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

[[Page 64303]]

Agency Contact:
Christine Gurland
Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5157
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2133-AB37
RIN: 2133-AB74
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--MARAD



129. [rplus]CARGO PREFERENCE -- COMPROMISE, ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION, 
SETTLEMENT AND COLLECTION OF CIVIL PENALTIES

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 110-417


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 383


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish part 383 of the cargo preference 
regulations. This rulemaking would cover P.L. 110-417, section 3511, 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 statutory changes to the 
cargo preference rules, which have not been substantially revised since 
1971. The rulemaking also would include compromise, assessment, 
mitigation, settlement, and collection of civil penalties.


Statement of Need:


On September 4, 2009, the USDA, MARAD, and USAID entered into a MOU 
regarding the proper implementation of the Cargo Preference Act. The 
MOU establishes procedures and standards by which owners and operators 
of oceangoing cargo ships may seek to designate each of their vessels 
as either a dry bulk carrier or a dry cargo liner, according to 
specified service-based criteria. With the help of OMB, these agencies 
are negotiating updates to the comprehensive Cargo Preference rule, 
which has not been significantly changed since 1971. The statutory 
changes will be the subject of either a separate rulemaking or as part 
of the comprehensive rulemaking.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Cargo Preference Act requires that Federal agencies take necessary 
and practicable steps to ensure that privately-owned US flag vessels 
transport at least 50 percent of the gross tonnage of cargo sponsored 
under Federal programs to the extent such vessels are available at fair 
and reasonable rates for commercial vessels of the US, in a manner that 
will ensure a fair and reasonable participation of commercial vessels 
of the US in those cargoes by geographic areas. 46 USC 55305(b). An 
additional 25 percent of gross tonnage of certain food assistance 
programs is to be transported in accordance with the requirements of 46 
USC 55314. P.L 110-417 gave MARAD the authority for assessing civil 
penalties and make-up cargoes for non-compliance with the cargo 
preference laws.


Alternatives:


TBD


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TBD


Risks:


TBD


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Christine Gurland
Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5157
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2133-AB74
RIN: 2133-AB75
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-S

[[Page 64304]]




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 requirements 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.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
On October 3, 2008, the President signed the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (Pub. L. 110-334). Section 101(a) of 
EESA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Troubled 
Asset Relief Program (TARP) to ``purchase, and to make and fund 
commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial 
institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the 
Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and policies and procedures 
developed and published by the Secretary.''
EESA provides authority to issue regulations and guidance to implement 
the program. Regulations and guidance required by EESA include 
conflicts of interest, executive compensation, and tax guidance. The 
Secretary is also charged with establishing a program that will 
guarantee principal of, and interest on, troubled assets originated or 
issued prior to March 14, 2008.
The Department has issued guidance and regulations and will continue to 
provide program information through the next year. Regulatory actions 
taken to date include the following:
 Executive compensation. In October 2008, the Department issued 
            an interim final rule that set forth executive compensation 
            guidelines for the TARP Capital Purchase Program (73 FR 
            62205). Related tax guidance on executive compensation was 
            announced in IRS Notice 2008-94. In addition, among other 
            EESA tax guidance, the IRS issued interim guidance 
            regarding loss corporation and ownership changes in Notice 
            2008-100, providing that any shares of stock owned by the 
            Department of the Treasury under the Capital Purchase 
            Program will not be considered to cause Treasury's 
            ownership in such corporation to increase. On June 15, 
            2009, the Department issued a revised interim final rule 
            that sets forth executive compensation guidelines for all 
            TARP program participants (74 FR 28394), implementing 
            amendments to the executive compensation provisions of EESA 
            made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
            (Pub. L.111-5). Public comments on the revised interim 
            final rule regarding executive compensation were due by 
            August 14, 2009 and will be considered as part of the 
            process of issuing a final rule on this subject.
 Insurance program for trouble assets. On October 14, 2008, the 
            Department released a request for public input on an 
            insurance program for troubled assets.
 Conflicts of interest. On January 21, 2009, the Department 
            issued an interim final rule providing guidance on 
            conflicts of interest pursuant to section 108 of EESA (74 
            FR 3431). Comments on the interim final rule, which were 
            due by March 23, 2009, will be considered as part of the 
            process of issuing a final rule.
During Fiscal Year 2010, the Department will continue implementing the 
EESA authorities to restore capital flows to the consumers and 
businesses that form the core of the nation's economy.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) was signed into law on 
November 26, 2002. The 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 
Act has since been extended to December 31, 2014, by the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA).
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is 
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing 
TRIA, as extended and amended by TRIEA and TRIPRA. 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.

[[Page 64305]]

Over the past year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary has issued 
proposed rules implementing changes authorized by TRIA as revised by 
TRIPRA. The following regulations should be published by December 31, 
2009:
 Recoupment of Federal Share of Compensation for Insured 
            Losses. This final rule would implement and establish 
            requirements for determining amounts to be recouped and for 
            procedures insurers are to use for collecting terrorism 
            policy surcharges and remitting them to the Treasury.
 Cap on Annual Liability and Pro Rata Share of Insured Losses. 
            This final rule would establish, for purposes of the $100 
            billion cap on annual liability, how Treasury will 
            determine whether aggregate insured losses will exceed $100 
            billion and, if so, how Treasury will determine the pro 
            rata share of insured losses to be paid by each insurer 
            that incurs insured losses under the Program.
During 2010, Treasury will continue the ongoing work of implementing 
TRIA and carrying out revised operations as a result of the TRIPRA 
related regulation changes.
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 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-retained CBP customs-
revenue function regulations issued was an interim rule to amend the 
regulatory provisions relating to the requirement under the United 
States-Bahrain FTA (BFTA) that a good must be ``imported directly'' 
from Bahrain to the United States or from the United States to Bahrain 
to qualify for preferential tariff treatment. The change removed the 
condition that a good passing through the territory of an intermediate 
country must remain under the control of the customs authority of the 
intermediate country. CBP plans to finalize this rulemaking in the 
upcoming fiscal year.
In addition, during the past fiscal year, CBP amended the regulations 
on an interim basis to implement certain provisions of the Tom Lantos 
Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 
(Public Law 110-286) (the ``JADE Act'') and Presidential Proclamation 
8294 of September 26, 2008, which includes new Additional U.S. Note 4 
to Chapter 71 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). The interim amendments prohibit the importation of 
Burmese-covered articles of jadeite, rubies and articles of jewelry 
containing jadeite or rubies, and sets forth restrictions for the 
importation of non-Burmese covered articles of jadeite, rubies and 
articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies.
As a result of last year's ``Farm Bill'' legislation, CBP implemented 
interim regulations on the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008, which 
prescribed special entry requirements as well as an importer 
declaration program applicable to certain softwood lumber (SWL) and SWL 
products exported from any country into the United States; CBP plans to 
finalize the interim rule in the upcoming fiscal year.
During fiscal year 2010, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to the 
following regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions 
not delegated to DHS:
 Trade Act of 2002's preferential trade benefit provisions. 
            Treasury and CBP plan to finalize several interim 
            regulations that implement the trade benefit provisions of 
            the Trade Act of 2002 including the Caribbean Basin 
            Economic Recovery Act and the African Growth and 
            Opportunity Act.
 Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and CBP also plan to finalize 
            interim regulations this fiscal year to implement the 
            preferential tariff treatment provisions of the United 
            States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 
            and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
            Free Trade Agreement (also known as ``CAFTA-DR'') 
            Implementation Act. Treasury and CBP expect to issue 
            interim regulations implementing the United States-
            Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the 
            United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 
            and the United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement 
            Implementation Act.
 Country of Origin of Textile and Apparel Products. Treasury 
            and CBP also plan 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.
 North American Free Trade Agreement country of origin rules. 
            Treasury and CBP are determining how to proceed regarding a 
            proposal which was published in July 2008 seeking public 
            comment regarding uniform rules governing the determination 
            of the country of origin of imported merchandise. The 
            proposal attracted considerable interest from the trading 
            community. If finalized, the proposed amendments would 
            extend the application of the North American Free Trade 
            Agreement country of origin rules to all trade.
 Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free 
            Trade Implementation Act (Customs Mod Act). Treasury and 
            CBP also plan to continue moving forward with amendments to 
            improve its regulatory procedures began under the authority 
            granted by the Customs Mod Act. These efforts, in 
            accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866,

[[Page 64306]]

            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 establish permanently the 
            programs. Consistent with this practice, we expect to 
            finalize a proposal to establish permanently 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. In 
            addition, Treasury and CBP plan to finalize a proposal 
            which was published in August 2008 regarding the electronic 
            payment and refund of quarterly harbor maintenance fees. 
            The rule would provide the trade with expanded electronic 
            payment/refund options for quarterly harbor maintenance 
            fees and would modernize and enhance CBP's port use fee 
            collection efforts.
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 addition the Fund administers 
the Financial Education and Counseling Pilot Program (FEC) and the 
Capital Magnet Fund (CMF).
In fiscal year (FY) 2010, subject to funding availability, the Fund 
will provide awards through the following programs:
 Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program. Through the 
            NACA Program, 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.
 Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program. Through 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.
 New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program. 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 Education and Counseling (FEC) Pilot Program. 
            Through the FEC Pilot Program, the CDFI Fund will provide 
            grants to eligible organizations to provide a range of 
            financial education and counseling services to prospective 
            homebuyers. The Fund will administer the FEC Program in 
            coordination with the Office of Financial Education.
 Capital Magnet Fund (CMF). Through the Capital Magnet Fund, 
            the CDFI Fund will provide competitively awarded grants to 
            CDFIs and qualified nonprofit housing organizations to 
            finance affordable housing and related community 
            development projects. In FY 2010, the Fund expects to draft 
            and publish regulations to govern the application process, 
            award selection, and compliance components of the CMF.
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 
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 2009, FinCEN issued, or plans to issue, the 
following regulatory actions:
 Currency Transaction Reporting Exemptions. FinCEN published a 
            Final Rule that simplifies the existing currency 
            transaction reporting (CTR) exemption regulatory 
            requirements. The amendments were recommended by the 
            Government Accountability Office in GAO-08-355. By 
            simplifying the regulatory requirements regarding CTR 
            exemptions, FinCEN believes that more depository 
            institutions will avail themselves of the exemptions. The 
            rule was finalized with an effective date of January 5, 
            2009.
 Administrative Rulings. Prior to the end of the fiscal year, 
            FinCEN will issue a final technical rule change to update 
            the Bank Secrecy Act provisions to reflect that 
            Administrative Rulings are published on the FinCEN Web 
            site, rather than in the Federal Register.
 Reorganization of BSA Rules. On October 23, 2008, FinCEN 
            issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to re-designate and 
            reorganize the BSA regulations in a new chapter within the 
            Code of Federal Regulations. The re-designation and 
            reorganization of the regulations in a new chapter is not

[[Page 64307]]

            intended to alter regulatory requirements. The regulations 
            will be organized in a more consistent and intuitive 
            structure that more easily allows financial institutions to 
            identify their specific regulatory requirements under the 
            BSA. The new chapter will replace 31 CFR Part 103.
 Money Services Businesses. On May 12, 2009, FinCEN issued a 
            Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing definitional 
            thresholds for Money Services Businesses (MSBs), 
            incorporating previously issued Administrative Rules and 
            guidance with regard to MSBs, and addressing the issue of 
            foreign-located MSBs.
 Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports. On March 3, 
            2009, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
            clarifying the non-disclosure provisions with respect to 
            the existing regulations pertaining to the confidentiality 
            of suspicious activity reports (SARs). In conjunction with 
            this notice, FinCEN issued for comment two guidance 
            documents, SAR Sharing with Affiliates for depository 
            institutions and SAR Sharing with Affiliates for securities 
            and futures industry entities, to solicit comment 
            permitting certain financial institutions to share SARs 
            with their U.S. affiliates that are also subject to SAR 
            reporting requirements.
 Mutual Funds. On June 5, 2009, FinCEN issued a Notice of 
            Proposed Rulemaking addressing the definition of financial 
            institution in the BSA's implementing regulations to 
            include open-end investment companies (mutual funds). 
            Despite the fact that mutual funds are already required to 
            comply with anti-money laundering and customer 
            identification program requirements, file SARs, comply with 
            due diligence obligations pursuant to rules implementing 
            section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and perform other BSA 
            compliance functions, a mutual fund is not designated as a 
            `financial institution' under the BSA implementing 
            regulations. The proposed rule would address obligations to 
            file Currency Transaction Reports for cash transactions 
            over $10,000 in lieu of current obligations to file Form 
            8300s.
 Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators. On July 
            21, 2009, FinCEN issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 
            Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comment on a wide 
            range of questions pertaining to the possible application 
            of anti-money laundering (AML) program and suspicious 
            activity report regulations to a specific sub-set of loan 
            and finance companies, i.e., non-bank residential mortgage 
            lenders and originators
 Expansion of Special Information Sharing Procedures (pursuant 
            to section 314(a) of the BSA). Prior to the end of the 
            fiscal year, FinCEN will issue a Notice of Proposed 
            Rulemaking to amend the BSA regulations to allow certain 
            foreign law enforcement agencies, State and local law 
            enforcement agencies, and FinCEN itself to submit requests 
            for information to financial institutions.
 Withdrawal of Proposed Rules. On October 30, 2008, FinCEN 
            withdrew the proposed rules (issued in 2002 and 2003) for 
            investment advisers, commodity trading advisors, and 
            unregistered investment companies. The proposed rules were 
            withdrawn to eliminate uncertainty associated with the 
            existence of out-of-date proposed rules, and to allow 
            FinCEN to issue new notices of proposed rulemaking at a 
            later date that take into account industry regulatory 
            developments with respect to investment advisers, commodity 
            trading advisors, and unregistered investment companies 
            since 2003.
 Renewal of Existing Rules. FinCEN renewed without change the 
            information collections associated with the existing 
            regulations requiring money services businesses, mutual 
            funds, operators of credit card systems, dealers in 
            precious metals, precious stones, or jewels, and certain 
            insurance companies to develop and implement written anti-
            money laundering programs. Also, FinCEN renewed without 
            change the information collections associated with the 
            existing regulations requiring futures commission 
            merchants, introducing brokers in commodities, banks, 
            savings associations, credit unions, certain non-federally 
            regulated banks, mutual funds, and securities broker-
            dealers to develop and implement customer identification 
            programs.
 Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN issued 10 
            Administrative Rulings and written guidance pieces (as of 
            August 2009) interpreting the BSA and providing clarity to 
            regulated industries.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2010 include finalizing 
the proposed initiatives mentioned above, as well as the following 
projects:
 Anti-Money Laundering Programs. Pursuant to section 352 of the 
            USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions are 
            required to establish AML programs. Continued from fiscal 
            year 2009, FinCEN will propose a rulemaking to require 
            state-chartered credit unions and other depository 
            institutions without a federal functional regulator to 
            implement AML programs. With the added information from the 
            ANPRM regarding non-bank residential mortgage lenders or 
            originators, FinCEN will research and analyze issues 
            regarding potential regulation of the loan and finance 
            industry, and may issue proposed rulemaking with regard to 
            non-bank residential mortgage lenders and originators. 
            Finally, FinCEN also will continue to consider regulatory 
            options regarding certain corporate and trust service 
            providers.
 Regulatory Framework for Stored Value. The Credit Card 
            Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD 
            Act) of 2009 (Section 503) requires FinCEN to issue a final 
            rule ``regarding issuance, sale, redemption, or 
            international transport of stored value'' by mid-February 
            2010. This act has imposed a timetable to activities that 
            were already underway. Just prior to the enactment of the 
            CARD Act, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
            clarifying the applicability of BSA regulations with 
            respect to MSB activities. As part of this Notice of 
            Proposed Rulemaking, FinCEN solicited comment on the 
            treatment of stored value as money transmission under 
            FinCEN's regulations. In the accelerated rulemaking 
            environment resulting from the CARD Act, FinCEN is 
            consulting with law enforcement and other regulators with 
            the intent to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
            then a Final Rule to meet the established deadline. FBAR 
            Requirements. FinCEN will work with the IRS and other 
            pertinent offices within the Department of the Treasury to 
            issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to 
            revising the regulations governing the filing of Reports of 
            Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs). Among other 
            things, FinCEN and the IRS will seek comments regarding 
            when a person with signature authority over, but no 
            financial interest in, a foreign financial account should 
            be relieved of filing an FBAR for the account, and when an 
            interest in a foreign entity

[[Page 64308]]

            (e.g., a corporation, partnership, trust or estate) should 
            be subject to FBAR reporting.
Other Requirements. FinCEN will continue to consider 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 IRS regulations interpret tax statutes to resolve ambiguities or 
fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes interpreting particular 
words, applying rules to broad classes of circumstances, and resolving 
apparent and potential conflicts between various statutory provisions.
During fiscal year 2010, the IRS will accord priority to the following 
regulatory projects:
 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. In 
            March 2008, the IRS and Treasury withdrew the 2006 proposed 
            regulations and issued new proposed regulations, which have 
            generated relatively few comments. The IRS and Treasury 
            intend to finalize those regulations.
 Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The 
            arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under 
            section 148 generally limit issuers from investing bond 
            proceeds higher-yielding investments. Treasury and the IRS 
            plan to issue proposed regulations to address selected 
            current issues involving the arbitrage restrictions, 
            including clarification of the issue price definition used 
            in the computation of bond yield, clarification and 
            simplification of the rules regarding modifications and 
            terminations of qualified hedging transactions, guidance on 
            the treatment of working capital financing, and selected 
            other issues.
 Tax Credit Bonds. Tax credit bonds are bonds in which the 
            holder receives a federal tax credit in lieu of some or all 
            of the interest on the bond. The American Recovery and 
            Reinvestment Act of 2009 created a number of new types of 
            tax credit bonds and modified the law as it concerned 
            several existing types of tax credit bonds. The IRS and 
            Treasury intend to provide guidance on numerous legal 
            issues concerning tax credit bonds and to develop clear 
            guidelines for the IRS Tax Exempt Bond enforcement program.
 Build America Bonds. Treasury and the IRS plan to issue 
            proposed regulations to provide guidance on interpretative 
            issues that have arisen in implementing the broad new Build 
            America Bond program in section 54AA under the American 
            Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
 Private Activity Bonds. Treasury and the IRS to issue final 
            regulations on allocation and accounting rules for 
            application of the private business restrictions on tax-
            exempt governmental bonds under section 141. These 
            regulations will include guidance on public-private 
            partnerships and mixed use arrangements in which projects 
            are used in part by State and local governments and in part 
            by private businesses. These regulations will finalize 2006 
            proposed regulations with modifications in consideration of 
            the public comments.
 Guidance on the Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. Recent 
            events in the financial markets have highlighted a number 
            of unresolved tax issues relating to the amount, character, 
            and timing of income, expense, gain, or loss on distressed 
            debt. In addition, the tax treatment of distressed debt, 
            including distressed debt that has been modified, may 
            affect the qualification of certain entities for tax 
            purposes or result in additional taxes on the investors in 
            such entities, such as regulated investment companies, real 
            estate investment trusts, and real estate mortgage 
            investment conduits. During fiscal year 2009, Congress, 
            Treasury, and the IRS have addressed some of these issues 
            through statutory changes and published guidance. Treasury 
            and the IRS plan to address more of these issues in 
            published guidance.
 Classification of Series LLCs and Cell Companies. Series LLCs 
            were first introduced in Delaware in 1996, and since then, 
            series LLC statutes have been adopted in several other 
            states. These statutes typically permit the entity to 
            segregate assets and liabilities and to associate certain 
            members with specified assets and liabilities. In the 
            insurance and foreign arena, similar entities are sometimes 
            referred to as cell companies. In Notice 2008-19, the IRS 
            requested comments on when a cell of a protected cell 
            company should be treated as a separate insurance company 
            for federal income tax purposes. The IRS also requested 
            comments on similar segregated arrangements, such as series 
            LLCs that do not involve insurance. It is likely that, over 
            time, the use of series LLCs and cell companies will 
            increase. Accordingly, it is important to provide timely 
            guidance to clarify the classification and other tax 
            treatment of this new form of organization. Guidance has 
            been requested on the federal tax classification of these 
            domestic and foreign entities. The IRS

[[Page 64309]]

            and Treasury intend to issue guidance that will address the 
            characterization of domestic and foreign series and cells 
            for federal tax purposes.
 Elective Deferral of Certain Business Discharge of 
            Indebtedness Income. In the recent economic downturn, many 
            business taxpayers realized income as a result of modifying 
            the terms of their outstanding indebtedness or refinancing 
            on terms subjecting them to less risk of default. The 
            American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes a 
            special relief provision allowing for the elective deferral 
            of certain discharge of indebtedness income realized in 
            2009 and 2010. The provision, section 108(i) of the Code, 
            is complicated and many of the details will have to be 
            supplied through regulatory guidance. This guidance will 
            have to be provided expeditiously so taxpayers will be able 
            to evaluate the benefits of electing deferral. Treasury and 
            the IRS recently issued Revenue Procedure 2009-37 that 
            prescribes the procedure for making the election. The IRS 
            and Treasury intend to issue additional guidance on such 
            issues as the types of indebtedness eligible for the 
            relief, acceleration of deferred amounts, the operation of 
            the provision in the context of flow-through entities, the 
            treatment of the discharge for the purpose of computing 
            earnings and profits, and the operation of a provision of 
            the statute deferring original issue discount deductions 
            with respect to related refinancings.
 Rules under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and Other 
            Retirement-Related Guidance. 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 prioritized the various 
            pieces of guidance required to comply with those rules. The 
            IRS and Treasury intend to issue additional guidance on the 
            provisions of the PPA related to funding. In addition, the 
            IRS and Treasury will be issuing various items of 
            administrative guidance that facilitate or enhance 
            retirement savings and security.
 Withholding on Government Payments for Property and Services. 
            Section 3402(t) was added to the Internal Revenue Code by 
            the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 
            (TIPRA). Section 3402(t) requires all Federal, State and 
            local Government entities (except for certain small State 
            entities) to deduct and withhold an income tax equal to 3 
            percent from all payments (with certain enumerated 
            exceptions) the Government entity makes for property or 
            services. Section 3402(t) will be effective with respect to 
            payments made after December 31, 2011. On March 11, 2008, 
            the IRS issued Notice 2008-38 soliciting public comments 
            regarding guidance to be provided to Federal, State and 
            local governments required to withhold under section 
            3402(t). After considering the many comments, the IRS and 
            Treasury issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which was 
            published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2008. A 
            hearing on the proposed regulations was held on April 16, 
            2009, and the IRS has received 168 comments from 
            stakeholders on the proposed regulations. The IRS and 
            Treasury are considering the comments and intend to issue 
            final regulations.
 Information Reporting of Basis by Brokers and Others. Section 
            403 of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 
            (Pub. L. No. 110-343) enacted on October 3, 2008, amended 
            section 6045 to require brokers to report both the basis 
            and gross proceeds of securities sold by customers. Form 
            1099-B is used for this purpose. Basis reporting generally 
            will be required for stock acquired after December 31, 
            2010. Basis reporting will be required for debt securities, 
            such as bonds, acquired after December 31, 2012. The 
            legislation also imposed basis reporting requirements on 
            others in certain circumstances. The IRS and Treasury 
            intend to issue proposed and final regulations under to 
            address these new reporting requirements.
 Information Reporting Concerning Payment Card Transactions. 
            Section 6050W was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the 
            Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008, enacted on July 30, 
            2008. Section 6050W requires information returns to be made 
            for each calendar year beginning after December 31, 2010, 
            by merchant-acquiring entities and third-party settlement 
            organizations with respect to payment card transactions and 
            third-party payment network transactions occurring in that 
            calendar year. Certain payment card transactions subject to 
            information reporting under section 6050W are subject to 
            backup withholding if the payee has not provided a valid 
            taxpayer identification number (TIN). Announcement 2009-6, 
            2009-9 IRB 643 (Feb. 6, 2009), advised section 6050W filers 
            that they may participate in the TIN matching program under 
            the procedures established in Rev. Proc. 2003-9, 2003-1 
            C.B. 516, which permits program participants to verify the 
            payee TINs required to be reported on information returns 
            and payee statements. Notice 2009-19, 2009-10 IRB 660 (Feb. 
            20, 2009), requested public comments regarding guidance to 
            be provided to payment settlement entities and other 
            affected persons concerning the new requirements under 
            section 6050W. The IRS and Treasury intend to issue 
            proposed and final regulations under sections 6050W to 
            address these requirements.
 Withholding Tax and the Role of Financial Intermediaries. In 
            1997 the IRS and Treasury issued regulations under the 
            section 1441 provisions for withholding tax on certain 
            items of portfolio investment income from U.S. sources. The 
            qualified intermediary (QI) system was a key element. In 
            October 2008 the IRS issued Announcement 2008-98 concerning 
            proposed amendments to the qualified intermediary 
            agreements and rules to address early notice of failures of 
            internal controls, evaluation of risk that foreign accounts 
            may be subject to control by U.S. persons, and association 
            of a U.S. auditor to the oversight of QI performance. The 
            IRS and Treasury intend to issue regulations to address 
            these various areas of compliance involving the withholding 
            taxes on portfolio investment income.
 Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR). In May 2009 the 
            Treasury issued budget proposals for Fiscal Year 2010 which 
            included proposed legislation to address FBAR related 
            issues. In August 2009, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 
            2009-62 providing an extension until June 30, 2010 to file 
            FBARs for 2008 and earlier calendar years, pending the 
            preparation of further guidance. The IRS and Treasury 
            intend to issue regulations to address these FBAR issues.
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.

[[Page 64310]]

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.
Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2009 include:
 Fair Credit Reporting, Accuracy and Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (12 CFR Part 41). 
            The banking agencies,\1\ the National Credit Union 
            Administration (NCUA), and the Federal Trade Commission 
            (FTC) issued a joint final rule to implement section 312 of 
            the FACT Act. Section 312 requires the issuance of 
            guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of 
            information entities furnish to a consumer reporting agency 
            (CRA). Section 312 also requires the issuance of 
            regulations requiring entities that furnish information to 
            a CRA to establish reasonable policies and procedures for 
            the implementation of the guidelines. In addition, section 
            312 requires jointly prescribed regulations that identify 
            the circumstances under which a furnisher of information to 
            a CRA shall be required to investigate a dispute concerning 
            the accuracy of information contained in a consumer report 
            based on the consumer's direct request to the furnisher. A 
            final rule was issued on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31484).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and 
Office of Thrift Supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance; Capital - Residential Mortgage Loans 
            Modified Pursuant to the Home Affordable Program (12 CFR 
            Part 3). In order to support and facilitate the timely 
            implementation of the Home Affordable Program (Program) 
            announced by the U.S. Department of Treasury and to promote 
            the stability of banking organizations and the financial 
            system, the banking agencies issued an interim final rule 
            providing that a residential mortgage loan (whether a 
            first-lien or a second-lien loan) modified under the 
            Program will retain the risk weight assigned to the loan 
            prior to the modification, so long as the loan continues to 
            meet other relevant supervisory criteria. The rule 
            minimizes disincentives to bank participation in the 
            Program that could otherwise result from agencies' 
            regulatory capital regulations. The banking agencies 
            believe that this treatment is appropriate in light of the 
            overall important public policy objectives of promoting 
            sustainable loan modifications for at-risk homeowners that 
            balance the interests of borrowers, servicers, and 
            investors. Joint agency action is essential to ensure that 
            the regulatory capital consequences of participation in the 
            Program are the same for all commercial banks and thrifts. 
            An interim final rule was issued on June 30, 2009. (74 FR 
            31160).
 Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (12 CFR Part 34). 
            The banking agencies, the NCUA, and Farm Credit 
            Administration (FCA) proposed amendments to their rules to 
            implement the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, 
            Title V of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, 
            P.L. 110-289. These amendments require an employee of a 
            depository institution, an employee of a depository 
            institution subsidiary regulated by a Federal banking 
            agency, or an employee of an institution regulated by the 
            FCA that engages in the business of a mortgage loan 
            originator to register with the Nationwide Mortgage 
            Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR) and to obtain a 
            unique identifier. These amendments also provide that these 
            institutions must require their employees who act as 
            mortgage loan originators to comply with this Act's 
            registration and unique identifier requirements and must 
            adopt and follow written policies and procedures to assure 
            compliance with these requirements. A notice of proposed 
            rulemaking was issued on June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27386). The 
            OCC has included this rulemaking project in the Regulatory 
            Plan (1557-AD23).
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines -- Money Market Mutual Funds (12 
            CFR Part 3). On September 19, 2008, the Board of Governors 
            of the Federal Reserve System adopted the Asset-Backed 
            Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity 
            Facility (the ``AMLF'' or ``ABCP Lending Facility'') which 
            enables depository institutions and bank holding companies 
            to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on a 
            nonrecourse basis if they use the proceeds of the loan to 
            purchase certain asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) from 
            money market mutual funds. The purpose of this action was 
            to reduce strains being experienced by money market mutual 
            funds. To facilitate national bank participation in the 
            program, the OCC adopted on September 19, 2008,\2\ on an 
            interim final basis, an exemption from its risk-based 
            capital guidelines for ABCP held by a national bank as a 
            result of its participation in this program. The AMLF was 
            set to expire on January 30, 2009. However, to encourage 
            the stability of money market mutual funds, the program has 
            been extended. This rule finalizes the risk-based capital 
            exemption and extends the risk-based capital exemption to 
            ABCP purchased beyond the original January 30, 2009 date. 
            This final rule applies the risk-based capital exemption to 
            any ABCP purchased as a result of a national bank's 
            participation in the facility. The risk-based capital 
            exemption will continue to apply if the AMLF has not 
            expired. A final rule was issued on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 
            13336).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 73 FR 55704 (September 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Minimum Capital Ratios; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital 
            Maintenance; Capital: Deduction of Goodwill Net of 
            Associated Deferred Tax Liability (12 CFR Part 3). The 
            banking agencies issued a final rule to allow their 
            institutions to elect to reduce the amount of goodwill that 
            a bank must deduct from tier 1 capital by the amount of any 
            deferred tax liability associated with that goodwill. This 
            treatment is currently permitted only in the case of 
            goodwill acquired in a nontaxable purchase business 
            combination. This change effectively reduces the amount of 
            goodwill that a bank must deduct from tier 1 capital and 
            reflects a bank's maximum effective exposure to loss in the 
            event that such goodwill is impaired or derecognized for 
            financial reporting purposes. A final rule was issued on 
            December 30, 2008 (74 FR 79602).
 Standards Governing the Release of a Suspicious Activity 
            Report (12 CFR Part 4). The OCC proposed to revise its 
            regulations governing the release of non-public OCC 
            information set forth in 12 CFR part 4, subpart C. The 
            proposal would clarify that the OCC's decision to release a 
            suspicious activity report (SAR) will be governed by the 
            standards set forth in proposed amendments to the OCC's SAR 
            regulation, 12 CFR 21.11(k), that are part of a separate, 
            but simultaneously issued, rulemaking. A notice of

[[Page 64311]]

            proposed rulemaking was published on March 9, 2009 (74 FR 
            10136).
 Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports (12 CFR Part 
            21). The OCC proposed to amend its regulations implementing 
            the Bank Secrecy Act governing the confidentiality of a 
            suspicious activity report (SAR) to: clarify the scope of 
            the statutory prohibition on the disclosure by a national 
            bank of a SAR; address the statutory prohibition on the 
            disclosure by the government of a SAR as that prohibition 
            applies to the OCC's standards governing the disclosure of 
            SARs; clarify that the exclusive standard applicable to the 
            disclosure of a SAR, or any information that would reveal 
            the existence of a SAR, by the OCC is ``to fulfill official 
            duties consistent with the purposes of the BSA''; and 
            modify the safe harbor provision in its rules to include 
            changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act. This proposal is based 
            upon a similar proposal issued simultaneously by the 
            Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). A notice of 
            proposed rulemaking was published on March 9, 2009 (74 FR 
            10130).
 Community and Economic Development Entities, Community 
            Development Projects, and Other Public Welfare Investments 
            (12 CFR Part 24). The OCC adopted without change the 
            interim final rule, issued on August 11, 2008, which 
            implemented the statutory change to national banks' 
            community development investment authority made in the 
            Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). The OCC 
            also revised Appendix 1 to part 24, the CD-1 National Bank 
            Community Development (Part 24) Investments Form, to make 
            technical changes that are consistent with the HERA 
            provision and the revised regulation. Section 2503 of the 
            HERA revised the community development investment authority 
            in section 24(Eleventh) to restore a national bank's 
            authority to make investments designed primarily to promote 
            the public welfare. A final rule was published on April 7, 
            2009 (74 FR 15657).
 Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (12 CFR Part 25). On 
            August 14, 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act 
            (HEOA) was enacted into law. Section 1031 of the HEOA 
            revised the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to require the 
            banking agencies, when evaluating a bank's record of 
            meeting community credit needs, to consider, as a factor, 
            low-cost education loans provided by the bank to low-income 
            borrowers. The banking agencies issued a proposal that 
            would implement section 1031 of the HEOA. In addition, the 
            proposal would incorporate into the banking agencies' rules 
            statutory language that allows them to consider as a factor 
            when evaluating a bank's record of meeting community credit 
            needs capital investment, loan participation, and other 
            ventures undertaken by nonminority- and nonwomen-owned 
            financial institutions in cooperation with minority- and 
            women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit 
            unions. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on 
            June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31209).
The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2010 include the 
following:
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance: Regulatory Capital; Impact of 
            Modifications to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; 
            Consolidation of Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Programs; 
            and Other Related Issues (12 CFR Part 3). The banking 
            agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to: (i) 
            modify their general risk-based capital standards and 
            advanced risk-based capital adequacy frameworks to 
            eliminate the exclusion of certain consolidated asset-
            backed commercial paper programs from risk-weighted assets; 
            and (ii) provide a reservation of authority in their 
            general risk-based capital standards to permit the 
            agencies' to require banking organizations to treat 
            structures that are not consolidated under accounting 
            standards as if they were consolidated for risk-based 
            capital purposes commensurate with the risk relationship of 
            the banking organization to the structure. The banking 
            agencies also requested comment on the effect on regulatory 
            capital requirements of the consolidation of assets 
            required by the Financial Accounting Standard Board's 
            (FASB) recent issuance of Statement of Financial Accounting 
            Standards No. 166, Accounting for Transfers of Financial 
            Assets, an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 140 and 
            Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 167, 
            Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R). A notice of 
            proposed rulemaking was published on September 15, 2009 (74 
            FR 47138).
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance: Basel II Standardized Approach (12 CFR 
            Part 3). As part of the banking agencies' ongoing efforts 
            to develop and refine the capital standards to enhance 
            their risk sensitivity and ensure the safety and soundness 
            of the banking system, they issued a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking to amend various provisions of the capital rules 
            on July 29, 2008, at 73 FR 43982. The changes involve 
            amending the current capital rules for those banks that 
            will not be subject to the advanced internal ratings-based 
            approaches. Work on a final rule is underway.
 Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk (12 CFR Part 3). The 
            banking agencies plan to issue a second notice of proposed 
            rulemaking to amend the market risk capital requirements 
            for national banks. The banking agencies issued a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking on September 25, 2006 (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.
 Interagency Proposal for Model Privacy Form under Gramm-Leach-
            Bliley Act (12 CFR Part 40). The banking agencies, along 
            with the NCUA, FTC, the Commodity Futures Trading 
            Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
            (SEC), 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, a safe harbor model 
            privacy form was proposed that financial institutions may 
            use to provide the disclosures under the privacy rules. 
            After further consumer testing of this model form, the SEC 
            published for comment in the Federal Register a report 
            analyzing this testing on April 20, 2009. 74 FR 17925. The 
            final rule will be published in November 2009.
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

[[Page 64312]]

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. The final Basel II Advanced Approaches rule 
            was published by the banking agencies on December 7, 2007 
            and became effective April 1, 2008. The OTS, in conjunction 
            with the other banking agencies, is working on implementing 
            the Advanced Approaches rule first for core banking 
            organizations. This is an institution-specific and multi-
            year process of evaluating each organization's readiness 
            and qualification to move forward into transitional capital 
            floors.
 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 Agencies did not finalize the 2006 NPRM. 
            Subsequently, the Basel Committee directed international 
            revisions which were completed in July 2009. At that time 
            the Agencies began drafting a new NPR, based upon the 
            international revisions as well as on the comments received 
            in 2006. The new NPRM should be issued in 2010.
 Risk-Based Capital Standards: Standardized Approach. The 
            banking agencies issued an NPRM implementing the 
            Standardized Approach to credit risk and approaches to 
            operational risk that are contained in the Basel II 
            Framework. 73 FR 43982 (July 29, 2008). 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. The comment period closed October 27, 2008 
            and the proposal is still pending final action by the 
            banking agencies.
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Impact of Modifications to 
            Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Consolidation of 
            Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Programs. The banking 
            agencies are proposing to modify its general risk-based 
            capital standards and advanced risk-based capital adequacy 
            framework to eliminate the exclusion of certain 
            consolidated asset-backed commercial paper programs from 
            risk-weighted assets; and permit the banking agencies to 
            require banking organizations to treat structures that are 
            not consolidated under accounting standards as if they were 
            consolidated for risk-based capital purposes commensurate 
            with the risk relationship of the banking organization to 
            the structure. The agencies issued an NPRM on September 15, 
            2009 (74 FR 47138).
Significant proposed rules issued during fiscal year 2009 include:
 S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing. On June 9, 2009, the banking 
            agencies and the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) issued a 
            joint NPRM proposing to amend their rules to implement the 
            Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (the 
            S.A.F.E. Act). These amendments require an employee of a 
            depository institution, an employee of a depository 
            institution subsidiary regulated by a Federal banking 
            agency, or an employee of an institution regulated by the 
            FCA that engages in the business of a mortgage loan 
            originator to register with the Nationwide Mortgage 
            Licensing System and Registry and to obtain a unique 
            identifier. These amendments also provide that these 
            institutions must require their employees who act as 
            mortgage loan originators to comply with this Act's 
            registration and unique identifier requirements and must 
            adopt and follow written policies and procedures to assure 
            compliance with these requirements. The comment period on 
            this proposal closed on July 9, 2009, and comments are 
            being reviewed in preparation for drafting a final rule in 
            2010.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2009 include:
 OTS, FRB and NCUA issued a final rule on January 29, 2009 (74 
            FR 5498) to prohibit certain unfair or deceptive acts or 
            practices in the areas of credit cards and overdrafts and 
            proposed clarifications to that final rule on May 5, 2009 
            (84 FR 20804). The comment period closed on July 30, 2009 
            and, in accordance with the statute, the agencies may issue 
            further clarifications at a later date.
 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 expect 
            to issue final amendments to their rules requiring initial 
            and annual privacy notices to their customers. And, 
            pursuant to Section 728 of the Financial Services 
            Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, the agencies are adopting a 
            model privacy form that financial institutions may rely on 
            as a safe harbor to provide disclosures under the privacy 
            rules.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations 
to enforce the Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 
ammunition taxes and relating to commerce involving alcohol beverages. 
TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
1) Regulate with regard to the issuance of permits and authorizations 
            to operate in the alcohol and tobacco industries;
2) 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; and
3) Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
            prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry.
TTB plans to pursue one significant regulatory action during FY 2010. 
In 2007, the Department approved the publication of a notice of 
proposed rulemaking soliciting comments on a proposal to require a 
serving facts statement on alcohol beverage labels. The proposed 
statement would include information about the serving size, the number 
of servings per container, and per-serving information on calories and 
grams of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. The proposed rule would also 
require

[[Page 64313]]

information about alcohol content. This regulatory action was initiated 
under section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 
U.S.C. 205(e), which confers on the Secretary of the Treasury authority 
to promulgate regulations for the labeling of alcoholic beverages, 
including regulations that prohibit consumer deception and the use of 
misleading statements on labels and that ensure that such labels 
provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and 
quality of the product. TTB received and reviewed approximately 800 
comments on the serving facts proposal and plans to put forward for 
Department approval a final rule on this matter in FY 2010.
In addition to the regulatory action described above, in FY 2010 TTB 
plans to give priority to the following regulatory matters:
 Modernization of title 27, Code of Federal Regulations. 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 parts of 
            title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 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 parts 
            represent nearly all the tax revenue that TTB collects, 
            which is expected to be approximately $22 billion in FY 
            2010. 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), as well 
            as regulations addressing the American Viticultural Area 
            program (Part 9) and TTB procedures (Part 70).
 To date, related to the modernization plan, TTB has published notices 
            of proposed rulemaking to revise Part 19 and to amend Part 
            9 and has reviewed the public comments received in response 
            to those notices, and TTB anticipates that in FY 2010 it 
            will forward to the Department final rules for both parts 
            for publication approval. In FY 2010, TTB plans to put 
            forward to the Department for publication approval an 
            advance notice for proposed rulemaking for the revision of 
            the beer regulations in Part 25.
 Allergen Labeling. In FY 2006 TTB published interim 
            regulations setting forth standards for voluntary allergen 
            labeling of alcohol beverages. These regulatory changes 
            were an outgrowth of changes made to the Federal Food, Drug 
            and Cosmetic Act by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer 
            Protection Act of 2004. At the same time, TTB published a 
            proposal to make those interim requirements mandatory. In 
            FY 2010 TTB intends to continue its review of mandatory 
            allergen labeling with a view to preparing a final rule 
            document that would take effect on the same date as the 
            serving facts regulatory changes discussed above.
 Multi-Region Appellations for Imported Wine. TTB will put 
            forward for Departmental publication approval a proposal to 
            amend its wine labeling regulations to allow the labeling 
            of imported wines with multi-region appellations of origin. 
            The proposed regulatory change would provide labeling 
            treatment for imported wines that is similar to what is 
            currently available for domestic wines, which may be 
            labeled with a multi-state or multi-county appellation of 
            origin.
 Other wine labeling issues. In FY 2010 TTB will continue to 
            act on petitions for the establishment of new American 
            viticultural areas (AVAs) and for the modification of the 
            boundaries of existing AVAs. TTB also will seek 
            Departmental publication approval of a number of other wine 
            labeling rulemaking documents for public comment in FY 
            2010. These initiatives include a clarification of the 
            approval process for the use of American grape varietal 
            names on labels and an updating of the list of approved 
            American grape varietal names. We also plan regulatory 
            action on petitions seeking to adopt new label designation 
            standards for wines now generally described as ``wine with 
            natural flavors,'' and to limit the use of American 
            appellations to wines produced entirely from U.S. grapes.
 Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol Formulas. 
            TTB will submit for publication approval by the Department 
            a proposal to reclassify some specially denatured alcohol 
            (SDA) formulas as completely denatured alcohol (CDA) for 
            which formula submission to TTB is not required. The 
            proposed regulatory changes would also allow other SDA 
            formulas to be used without the submission of article 
            formulas. These changes would allow TTB to shift its SDA-
            dedicated resources from the current front-end pre-market 
            formula control approach to a post-market assessment of 
            actual compliance with SDA regulations.
 Special (Occupational) Tax Repeal. TTB published in FY 2009 a 
            temporary rule, together with a contemporaneous notice of 
            proposed rulemaking that amended the TTB regulations in 
            response to the statutory repeal of the special 
            (occupational) taxes on producers and marketers of 
            alcoholic beverages. In FY 2010 TTB intends to put forward 
            for Departmental approval a document that adopts those 
            temporary amendments as a final rule.
 Alternation of Brewery Premises. In FY 2010 TTB will forward 
            to the Department for publication approval a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking to amend the TTB regulations to set 
            forth specific standards for the approval and operation of 
            alternating proprietorships at the same brewery premises. 
            The proposed regulations will include standards for 
            alternation agreements between host and tenant brewers as 
            well as rules for recordkeeping and segregation of products 
            made by different brewers.
 Determination of Tax on Large Cigars. TTB will forward to the 
            Department for publication approval a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking that clarifies the rules for determining the 
            amount of tax that is due on large cigars, which is based 
            on their sale price. The proposed regulatory changes will 
            include specific standards for determining the tax on large 
            cigars

[[Page 64314]]

            that are provided at no cost in connection with a sale.
 Time For Payment of Tax on Alcohol Beverages. In FY 2010 TTB 
            will forward to the Department for publication approval a 
            temporary rule, together with a contemporaneous notice of 
            proposed rulemaking, to reflect statutory standards for the 
            deferred payment of taxes on alcohol beverages in the month 
            of September and for quarterly payment of tax by small 
            producers of alcohol beverages.
 Classification of Tobacco Products. In FY 2010 TTB will 
            continue its review of standards for the classification of 
            different tobacco products. In FY 2007 TTB published a 
            notice of proposed rulemaking to set standards for 
            distinguishing between cigars and cigarettes and, after a 
            review of the public comments received in response to that 
            proposal, TTB determined that further review was necessary 
            with a view to possible publication of new proposals for 
            further comment. In addition, TTB will consider the 
            possibility of proposing standards to distinguish between 
            pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco.
 CHIPRA Tobacco Product and Processed Tobacco Implementation. 
            In FY 2009 TTB published two temporary rules, together with 
            a contemporaneous notice of proposed rulemaking in each 
            case, to implement changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 
            1986 made by the Children's Health Insurance Program 
            Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). The changes included 
            tobacco product tax rate increases, changes to the bases 
            for the denial, suspension, or revocation of permits for 
            tobacco manufacturers and importers, permit and related 
            requirements for manufacturers and importers of processed 
            tobacco, and an expansion of the definition of roll-your-
            own tobacco. TTB anticipates that in FY 2010 it will 
            forward to the Department for publication approval final 
            rules regarding these two regulatory initiatives.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) has responsibility for borrowing 
the money needed to operate the Federal Government and accounting for 
the resulting debt, regulating the primary and secondary Treasury 
securities markets, and ensuring that reliable systems and processes 
are in place for buying and transferring Treasury securities.
BPD administers regulations: (1) Governing transactions in Government 
securities by Government securities brokers and dealers under the 
Government Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended; (2) Implementing 
Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules governing the sale and 
issue of savings bonds, marketable Treasury securities, and State and 
local Government securities; (3) Setting out the terms and conditions 
by which Treasury may redeem (buy back) outstanding, unmatured 
marketable Treasury securities through debt buyback operations; (4) 
Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems; and (5) 
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.
During fiscal year 2010, BPD will accord priority to the following 
regulatory projects:
 Savings Bond Issuing and Paying Agent Regulations. BPD plans 
            to issue a final rule amending the savings bond issuing 
            regulations to equalize the fee structure between 
            definitive and electronic bonds, and amending the savings 
            bond paying agent regulations to replace the EZ Direct 
            system with the EZ Clear system.
 TreasuryDirect. BPD plans to issue a final rule revising the 
            TreasuryDirect regulations to support enhancements to the 
            system, primarily to implement a reinvestment option and to 
            revise the purchase process.
 Marketable Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and non-marketable 
            savings bonds. BPD plans to amend the regulations to remove 
            certain evidentiary requirements for deceased owner cases.
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 2010, FMS's regulatory plan includes the 
following priorities:
 Federal Government Participation in the Automated Clearing 
            House. FMS is proposing to amend our regulation at 31 CFR 
            part 210 governing the use of the Automated Clearing House 
            (ACH) system by Federal agencies. The proposed amendments 
            will adopt, with some exceptions, the ACH Rules developed 
            by NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association (NACHA) as 
            the rules governing the use of the ACH Network by Federal 
            agencies.
 We are issuing this proposed rule to address changes that NACHA has 
            made to the ACH Rules since the publication of NACHA's 2007 
            ACH Rules book. These changes include new requirements to 
            identify all international payment transactions using a new 
            Standard Entry Class Code and to include certain 
            information in the ACH record sufficient to allow the 
            receiving financial institution to identity the parties to 
            the transaction and to allow the Office of Foreign Assets 
            Control (OFAC) screening.
 In addition, we are proposing (1) to streamline the process for 
            reclaiming post-death benefit payments from financial 
            institutions; (2) to require financial institutions to 
            provide limited account-related customer information 
            related to the reclamation of post-death benefit payments 
            as permitted under the Payment Transactions Integrity Act 
            of 2008; and (3) to modify our previous guidance regarding 
            the requirement that non-vendor payments be delivered to a 
            deposit account in the name of the recipient.
 Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection 
            Improvement Act. FMS is amending its regulation at 31 CFR 
            part 285 governing the centralized offset of federal 
            payments, including tax refund payments, to collect nontax 
            debts owed to the United States. The amendments remove the 
            time limitation on the collection of nontax debts by 
            centralized offset, consistent with a change in the statute 
            on which it is based. The statutory change, enacted

[[Page 64315]]

            as part of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, 
            allows for the use of centralized offset of federal 
            payments, including federal salary payments, to collect 
            nontax debts owed to the United States irrespective of the 
            amount of time the debt has been outstanding.
Domestic Finance - Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary (OFAS)
The Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary develops policy for and 
oversees the operations of the financial infrastructure of the federal 
government, including payments, collections, cash management, 
financing, central accounting, and delinquent debt collection.
 Anti-Garnishment. In FY 2010, Treasury plans to promulgate a 
            joint rule, with Federal benefit agencies, to give better 
            force and effect to various benefit agency statutes that 
            exempt Federal benefits from garnishment. Typically, upon 
            receipt of a garnishment order from a State court, 
            financial institutions will completely freeze an account as 
            they perform due diligence in complying with the order. The 
            joint rule will address this practice of account freezes to 
            ensure that benefit recipients have access to a certain 
            amount of lifeline funds while garnishment orders or other 
            legal processes are resolved or adjudicated, and will 
            provide financial institutions with specific administrative 
            instructions to carry out upon receipt of a garnishment 
            order. The joint rule will apply to financial institutions, 
            but is not expected to have specific provisions for 
            consumers, States, debt collectors, or banking regulators. 
            However, the banking regulators would enforce the policy in 
            cases of non-compliance by means of their general 
            authorities. This proposed regulation will be a new part in 
            Title 31 jointly controlled by Treasury and the Federal 
            benefit agencies.
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--Departmental Offices (DO)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




130. EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT; CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-343; 122 Stat 3765


CFR Citation:


31 CFR 31


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule provides guidance on conflicts of interest pursuant to 
section 108 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), 
which was enacted on October 3, 2008.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to revise the interim conflicts of 
interest rule issued in January 2009 based on public comments received. 
This January 2009 interim rule addressed conflicts that may arise 
during the selection of individuals or entities seeking a contract or 
financial agency agreement with the Treasury, particularly those 
involved in the acquisition, valuation, management, and disposition of 
troubled assets.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is issued pursuant to section 108 of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), which was enacted on October 3, 2008. 
Section 108 of EESA authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations or 
guidelines necessary to address and manage or to prohibit conflicts of 
interest that may arise in connection with the administration and 
execution of the EESA authorities.


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not applicable.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/21/09                     74 FR 3431
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   01/21/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          03/23/09
Final Rule                      12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Program Compliance Officer
Office of Financial Stability
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20220
Phone: 202 622-2000
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1505-AC05
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--DO



131. TARP STANDARDS FOR COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-343; PL 111-5


CFR Citation:


31 CFR 30


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This interim final rule, promulgated pursuant to sections 101(a)(1), 
101(c)(5), and 111(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008, Division A of Public Law 110-343 (EESA), as amended, provides 
further guidance on the executive compensation provisions applicable to 
participants in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).


Statement of Need:


EESA provided immediate authority and facilities that the Secretary of 
the Treasury could use to restore liquidity and stability to the 
financial system. The rule is necessary to establish standards for 
executive compensation practices at firms receiving TARP assistance, in 
order to fully protect the interests of taxpayers and mandate 
compensation practices that maximize the value of the firm for 
shareholders.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 111 of EESA, as amended, provides that certain entities that 
receive financial assistance from Treasury under the TARP will be 
subject to specified executive compensation and corporate governance 
standards to be established by the Secretary.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.

[[Page 64316]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              06/15/09                    74 FR 28394
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   06/15/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/14/09
Final Rule                      12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Stephen Tackney
Attorney-Advisor
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20220
Phone: 202 622-1773
RIN: 1505-AC09
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




132. S.A.F.E. MORTGAGE LICENSING ACT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1 et seq; 12 USC 29; 12 USC 93a; 12 USC 371; 12 USC 1701j-3; 12 
USC 1828(o); 12 USC 3331 et seq


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 34


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, July 29, 2009, Implement Registration System.


Implement system for registering employees as mortgage loan originators 
with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry.


Abstract:


These regulations implement the Federal registration requirement 
imposed by the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, title V of the Housing 
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 
(2008)) with respect to national banks and their operating 
subsidiaries. They are being issued by the OCC, FRB, FDIC, OTS, NCUA, 
and Farm Credit Administration (the Agencies).


Statement of Need:


The S.A.F.E. Act requires the Agencies to develop and maintain a system 
for registering employees of depository institutions and their 
subsidiaries regulated by a Federal Banking Agency or employees of 
institutions regulated by the Farm Credit Administration as registered 
loan originators with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and 
Registry. The Agencies determined the best method for implementing this 
requirement was through a rulemaking.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is based on the requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act's 
requirements, S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, title V of the Housing 
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 
(2008)), and the OCC's general rulemaking authority in 12 U.S.C. 93a.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/09/09                    74 FR 27386
NPRM Comment Period End         07/09/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Heidi M. Thomas
Special 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: Related to 1550-AC33
RIN: 1557-AD23
BILLING CODE 4810-25-S

[[Page 64317]]




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 64318]]




ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)



Statement of Priorities
OVERVIEW
Established in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency is the primary 
federal agency responsible for protecting public health and the 
environment by improving air, land and water quality. EPA Administrator 
Lisa Jackson has embarked on an ambitious effort to restore momentum to 
EPA's core programs while also tackling emerging challenges such as 
climate change. Underlying this effort is the premise that 
environmental protection and economic growth are mutually achievable - 
that we can increase economic activity and create new jobs while we 
reduce harmful emissions and the dependence on polluting sources of 
energy. The Agency is dedicated to upholding the following values in 
its efforts to maintain the strongest level of environmental 
protection:
Scientific Integrity. The public health and environmental laws that 
Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available 
science. Scientific findings should be independent, using well-
established scientific methods, including peer review, to assure rigor, 
accuracy, and impartiality.
Following the Rule of Law. EPA recognizes that respect for 
Congressional mandates and judicial decisions is the hallmark of a 
principled regulatory agency. Where EPA exercises discretion, it must 
be conducted in good faith and in keeping with the directives of 
Congress and the courts.
Transparency. EPA will apply the principles of transparency and 
openness to the rulemaking process. Public trust in the Agency demands 
that EPA reach out to all stakeholders fairly and impartially, that EPA 
consider the views and data presented carefully and objectively, and 
that EPA fully disclose the information that forms the bases for our 
decisions.
Environmental Justice. For generations, pollution has been a 
disproportionate problem in low-income and minority communities, 
particularly for the children in those communities. EPA is initiating 
major improvements with outreach and interaction with those who have 
been historically underrepresented in agency decision making, including 
the disenfranchised in cities and rural areas, communities of color, 
native Americans, and people disproportionately impacted by pollution. 
EPA will identify, where possible, the public health or environmental 
impacts of policies, programs and activities on these communities and 
take action, as appropriate, to address such impacts.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Environmental protection and economic growth are complementary goals. 
With its partners, EPA is overseeing investment from the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 in ``green jobs'' and a 
healthier environment. To reach this goal, $7.22 billion has been 
designated for projects and programs administered by EPA. To support a 
green economy and a green environment, EPA lends support to innovation, 
investment and technology in the following environmental areas:
 Water Infrastructure Improvements for Communities: $4 billion 
            for state clean water funding and $2 billion for state 
            drinking water funding. This new infusion of money will 
            help states and local government finance many of the 
            overdue improvements to public waters and wastewater 
            systems that are essential to protecting public health and 
            assuring good water quality. 20 percent of this funding 
            will be targeted towards green infrastructure, water and 
            energy efficiency, and environmentally innovative projects.
 Brownfield Restorations: $100 million for grants to clean up 
            and return former industrial and commercial sites to their 
            communities for productive use. $5 million dollars is set 
            aside for job training in the assessment and remediation of 
            these sites.
 Diesel Emissions Reductions: $300 million for grants and loans 
            to help regional, state and local governments, tribes, and 
            non-profit organizations with projects that reduce harmful 
            diesel emissions from vehicles like school buses, garbage 
            trucks, construction equipment, marine vessels, and 
            locomotives. Reducing emissions helps to reduce the risk of 
            asthma, respiratory illnesses and premature deaths.
 Accelerating Superfund Site Cleanups: $600 million for the 
            cleanup of hazardous wastes from sites. EPA will use this 
            funding to increase the pace of these cleanups already 
            underway, and return the sites to our communities for 
            productive use.
 Accelerating Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups: $200 
            million for the cleanup of petroleum leaks that occurred 
            from underground storage tanks. There are approximately 
            100,000 sites eligible for cleanup where leaks threaten 
            soil or water quality or result in fire or explosion 
            hazards.
 Responsible Oversight: $20 million for the EPA Office of 
            Inspector General for audits, evaluations, investigations 
            and oversight of the Recovery Act funding to ensure that 
            every penny is spent on projects that benefit Americans.
EPA has a number of successes in fulfilling its obligations under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
 In the first EPA-related award under the American Recovery and 
            Reinvestment Act, EPA devoted nearly $100 million in 
            environmental funding to be invested in Colorado. This 
            includes more than $65 million for improving drinking water 
            and wastewater infrastructure, $2.5 million for leaking 
            underground storage tanks and $2 million for revitalizing 
            Brownfield sites.
 In the single largest grant in its history, EPA awarded more 
            than $430 million to the State of New York for wastewater 
            infrastructure projects that will create thousands of jobs, 
            jumpstart local economies and protect human health and the 
            environment across the state. The state will use the 
            Recovery Act grant to provide money to municipal and county 
            governments and wastewater utilities for projects to 
            protect lakes, ponds and streams in communities across New 
            York.
 The Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site near Redding, 
            California, will receive between $10-25 million that will 
            make it possible to dredge, treat, and dispose of heavy-
            metal contaminated sediments in the Spring Creek Arm of the 
            Kewich Reservoir in 18 months, rather than three years.
EPA's portion of the ARRA will encourage further growth in a greener 
workforce by creating sustainable jobs that help produce cleaner 
drinking water, purer air, environmentally friendly urban and rural re-
development, and reduced greenhouse gases. For new information on the 
state-by-state distributions for EPA's ARRA funds, see http://
www.epa.gov/recovery.

[[Page 64319]]

HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN
In developing its agenda, five priorities form the core of EPA's 
regulatory focus:
Climate Change
In the U.S., energy-related activities account for three-quarters of 
human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of carbon 
dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half the energy-
related emissions come from large stationary sources such as power 
plants, while about a third comes from transportation. Industrial 
processes (such as the production of cement, steel, and aluminum), 
agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste management are also 
important sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. 
This year, EPA is taking the first Federal regulatory steps to address 
the problem of global climate change.
New Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting. In the fall of 2009, EPA will 
publish a final rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas 
emissions from targeted sectors of the economy. This rule, funds for 
which were designated by the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
establishes monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements on 
facilities that produce, import, or emit greenhouse gases above a 
specific threshold in order to provide comprehensive and accurate data 
to support a range of future climate policy options.
Recognition that Greenhouse Gases Pose a Danger to Public Health and 
Welfare. On April 24, 2009, the Administrator proposed Endangerment and 
Cause or Contribute Findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 
This action, in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision, proposed to 
find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six 
key greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous 
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - in the atmosphere endanger the public 
health and welfare of current and future generations through climate 
change. As part of this action, the Administrator further proposed to 
find that the combined emissions of four of these six greenhouse gases 
from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the 
atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to 
the threat of climate change.
Vehicle Emissions. In the fall of 2009, EPA will propose to set 
national emissions standards under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act 
to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger cars and 
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, as part of a 
joint rulemaking with National Highway Traffic and Safety 
Administration (NHTSA). This joint rulemaking effort was announced by 
President Obama on May 19, 2009. The GHG standards would significantly 
reduce the GHG emissions from these light-duty vehicles.
Renewable Fuels Standard. In May of 2009, EPA proposed a rule that will 
address climate change and energy security by increasing the nation's 
use of renewable fuels. This rulemaking implements provisions in Title 
II of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that amend 
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. The amendments revise the National 
Renewable Fuels Standard Program in the United States, increasing the 
national requirement to a total of 36 billion gallons of total 
renewable fuel in 2022. The amendments also establish new eligibility 
requirements for meeting the renewable fuel standards, including the 
establishment of minimum lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction thresholds 
for the various categories of renewable fuels.
For more information about these regulatory actions, as well as 
information about other programs and activities related to climate 
change, please visit http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ or http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm.
Improving Air Quality
The U.S. continues to face serious air pollution challenges, with large 
areas of the country that still cannot meet federal air quality 
standards and many communities still facing health threats from 
exposure to toxics. 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 can remain in the environment for long 
periods of time and can be carried by the wind hundreds of miles from 
their origin.
Ambient Air Quality. This year's Regulatory Plan describes efforts to 
review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for oxides of 
nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, ozone, and particulates. The Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to review the NAAQS every 5 years for the primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) and, if appropriate, revise these standards. Each 
review consists of an exhaustive assessment of the current scientific 
evidence detailing the health and welfare effects of exposure to the 
pollutants, and a policy assessment of the policy implications of that 
evidence. Each review will conclude with the EPA Administrator either 
retaining or revising the standards, taking into consideration the 
views of independent scientists and the public.
Reducing Harmful Emissions from Power Plants. Under the federal 
structure set up by the Clean Air Act, it is the States who are 
primarily responsible for bringing about the pollutant emission 
reductions necessary to reach attainment with the NAAQS. However, EPA 
does help achieve these reductions through national programs requiring 
emission reductions from both mobile and stationary sources. This 
Regulatory Plan describes one particularly significant such program -- 
the Clean Air Transport Rule -- which employs a market-based ``cap and 
trade'' program to bring about broad reductions in sulfur dioxide and 
nitrogen oxides from power plants in the eastern half of the United 
States. This program is designed to reduce the amount of pollution that 
is transported by the wind over long distances. This transported 
pollution can be a large part of the total pollution in many eastern 
cities, and controlling it nationally is a crucial complement to the 
States' efforts to achieve clean air.
Cleaner Air from Improved Technology. EPA continues to address toxic 
air pollution under authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 
The centerpiece of this effort is the ``Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology'' (MACT) program, which requires that all major sources of a 
given type use emission controls that better reflect the current state 
of the art. One of these efforts is by setting standards for 
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters.
For more information about these regulatory actions, as well as 
information about other programs and activities related to air quality, 
please visit http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.

[[Page 64320]]

Management of Chemical Risks
EPA's Administrator has highlighted the need to strengthen EPA's 
chemical management program as one of her priorities coming in to the 
Agency. As part of this process, the Agency is evaluating its existing 
chemicals program to determine how best to ramp up efforts to assess, 
prioritize and take risk management action on chemicals of concern. EPA 
intends to announce the specifics of this effort and will seek public 
input.
Protection from Lead During and After Renovation. EPA is continuing its 
efforts to implement the final Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 
Program Rule that was issued in 2008. As part of these efforts, EPA 
will be developing revisions to the rule to address several issues 
raised in litigation, including the universe of housing where lead-safe 
work practices are required, the provision of additional information on 
renovation activities to owners and occupants, and possibly additional 
requirements to ensure that renovation work areas have been adequately 
cleaned after renovation work has been finished and before the areas 
are re-occupied.
For more information about these regulatory actions, as well as 
information about other programs and activities related to the 
management of chemical risks, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppts/.
Cleaning up Hazardous Waste
EPA envisions communities where blighted properties are transformed 
into safe and productive parcels, and threats to human health are 
properly mitigated, leading to jobs and a reinvestment in land, 
communities, and citizens. EPA's 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, preparing 
for, preventing and responding to chemical and oil spills, accidents, 
and emergencies; enhancing homeland security; increasing the beneficial 
use and recycling of secondary materials, the safe management of wastes 
and cleaning up contaminated property and making it available for 
reuse. Several regulatory priorities for the upcoming fiscal year will 
promote stewardship and resource conservation and focus regulatory 
efforts on risk reduction and statutory compliance.
Spill Prevention Control, and Countermeasures. EPA is considering 
amending the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 
requirements issued on December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74236), based on 
comments received on a February 2009 notice. The rule, when finalized, 
will streamline and reduce the burden imposed on the regulated 
community for complying with these SPCC requirements, while maintaining 
protection of human health and the environment.
Financial Responsibility. Under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA 
is to promulgate requirements that require certain classes of 
facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial 
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risks from 
the production, treatment, and transportation, storage or disposal of 
CERCLA hazardous substances. Additionally, EPA is to publish a notice 
of the classes of facilities for which financial responsibility 
requirements will be first developed. To fulfill the notice 
requirement, EPA identified the certain classes of facilities within 
the hardrock mining industry as the classes of facilities for which the 
Agency will first develop financial responsibility requirements under 
CERCLA 108(b). In addition, the Agency plans to publish a notice by 
December 2009 in which it will identify other possible classes of 
facilities for which the Agency will consider developing financial 
responsibility requirements.
Protection from Inadequate Management of Coal Waste. Coal Combustion 
Residuals (CCRs) comprise one of the largest industrial waste streams. 
To protect the public from human health risks and to prevent 
environmental damage resulting from present disposal practices, EPA 
expects to propose a rule by December 2009 for the management of CCRs 
in landfills and surface impoundments. In developing the proposed rule, 
the Agency will consider comments it received on its August 2007 notice 
of data availability, plus any additional information that the Agency 
has collected or has been provided regarding the management of these 
residuals.
For more information about these regulatory actions, as well as 
information about other programs and activities related to hazardous 
waste, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oswer/.
Protecting America's Water
EPA will intensify its work to restore water quality protections in our 
nation's streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers. EPA will 
make robust use of its authority to restore threatened treasures such 
as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, address neglected urban 
rivers, strengthen drinking water safety programs, and reduce pollution 
from industrial and non-industrial discharges. Three regulatory 
priorities for the coming fiscal year will help achieve some of these 
goals.
Improving Water Quality. EPA plans to address challenging water quality 
problems in two rulemakings during Fiscal Year 2010. First, the Agency 
will publish final standards to address erosion and sediment discharges 
associated with construction and development activities. Later in the 
fiscal year, EPA plans to solicit comment on proposed standards for 
cooling water intakes for electric power plants and for other 
manufacturers who use large amounts of cooling water. The goal of the 
proposed rule will be to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or 
injured through impingement or entrainment.
For more information about these regulatory actions, as well as 
information about other programs and activities related to water, 
please visit http://www.epa.gov/ow/.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
EPA has calculated a combined aggregate estimate of the costs and 
benefits of regulations included in the Regulatory Plan. For the fiscal 
year 2009, EPA has been able to gather sufficient data on seven of the 
twenty-two anticipated regulations to include them in an aggregate 
estimate. For the remaining actions, costs and benefits have not yet 
been calculated for various reasons. The regulations included in the 
aggregate estimate of costs and benefits are:
 Primary NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide (2060-AO19);
 Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition 
            Engines (2060-AO38);
 EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking for Light-Duty GHG Emission and 
            CAFE Standards (2060-AP58);
 Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial, and 
            Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources 
            of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 
            Boilers at Area Sources (2060-AM44);
 Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 
            (SPCC) Rule, 40 CFR 112 (2050-AG16);
 Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures (2040-AE95); and

[[Page 64321]]

 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
            Construction and Development (C&D) Point Source Category 
            (2040-AE91).
EPA obtained aggregate estimates of total costs and benefits assuming 
both a three percent discount rate and a seven percent discount rate. 
However, one of the regulations listed above (C&D) was not included in 
the seven percent aggregation due to lack of data. Given a three 
percent discount rate, benefits range from $114 billion to $360 billion 
while the costs range from $17 billion to $30 billion. With a seven 
percent discount rate, and omitting one rule, benefits range from $75 
billion to $305 billion. Costs with a seven percent discount rate range 
from $12 billion to $22 billion. In both cases, cost savings were 
treated as benefits, and all values are converted to 2008 dollars using 
a GDP deflator.
These results should be considered with caution. As with any aggregate 
estimate of total costs and benefits, these estimates must be highly 
qualified. First, there are significant gaps in data. In general, the 
benefits estimates reported above do not include values for benefits 
that have been quantified but not monetized and missing values for 
qualitative benefits, such as some human health benefits and ecosystem 
health improvements. Second, methodologies and types of costs/benefits 
considered are inconsistent, as are the units of analysis. Some of the 
costs/benefits are described as annualized values, while other values 
are specific to one year. Third, problems with aggregation can arise 
from differing baselines. Finally, the ranges presented do not reflect 
the full range of uncertainty in the benefit and cost estimates for 
these rules.
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:
 Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial, and 
            Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at Major Sources 
            of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 
            Boilers at Area Sources (2060-AM44);
 Renewable Fuel Standard Program (2060-AO810).
CONCLUSION
EPA's Regulatory Plan is an important element of the Agency's strategy 
for achieving environmental results within the framework described 
above. Taken as a whole, the Agency's Regulatory Plan will ensure that 
the Nation continues to achieve improvements in environmental quality 
while at the same time promoting economic growth.
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




133.  LEAD; RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC 
AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2682(c)(3)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


Other, Judicial, April 22, 2010, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.


NPRM, Judicial, December 15, 2011.


Final, Judicial, July 15, 2013.


Abstract:


Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 
EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities in target housing 
(most pre-1978 housing), pre-1978 public buildings, and commercial 
buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 2008, EPA 
issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards created by 
these activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities built 
before 1978. In this rule, child-occupied facilities are a subset of 
public and commercial buildings or facilities where children under age 
6 spend a great deal of time. The 2008 rule established requirements 
for training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling 
technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 
renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 
sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for 
recordkeeping. This new rulemaking will address renovation or 
remodeling activities in the remaining buildings described in TSCA 
section 402(c)(3): Public buildings built before 1978 and commercial 
buildings that are not child-occupied facilities.


Statement of Need:


Statutory requirement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 
EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-
based paint hazards in target housing, which is defined by statute to 
cover most pre-1978 housing, public buildings built before 1978, and 
commercial buildings.


Alternatives:


Yet to be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Yet to be determined.


Risks:


Yet to be determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/00/10
NPRM                            12/00/11
Final Action                    07/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5381; N/A


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

[[Page 64322]]

Agency Contact:
Hans Scheifele
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1459
Email: [email protected]

Cindy Wheeler
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0484
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ56
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



134. CERCLA 108(B) FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 9608 (b)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 
establishes certain authorities concerning financial responsibility 
requirements. The Agency has already identified classes of facilities 
within the hardrock mining industry as those for which financial 
responsibility requirements will be first developed. The Agency is 
currently examining the following classes of facilities for possible 
development of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
Section 108(b): hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, 
metal finishers, wood treatment facilities and chemical manufacturers. 
This list may be revised as the Agency's evaluation proceeds. EPA is 
scheduled to complete and publish in the Federal Register a notice 
identifying potential categories of facilities by December 2009.


Statement of Need:


The Agency is currently examining various classes of facilities that 
may produce, transport, treat, store or dispose of hazardous substances 
for development of financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 
Section 108(b).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.


Alternatives:


To be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


To be determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Priority Notice                 07/28/09                    74 FR 37213
FR Notice                       01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5350; EPA publication information: Priority Notice - http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2009/July/Day-28/f16819.pdf; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265


Agency Contact:
Ben Lesser
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-0314
Email: [email protected]

Elaine Eby
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8449
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG56
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




135. COMBINED RULEMAKING FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL 
BOILERS AND PROCESS HEATERS AT MAJOR SOURCES OF HAP AND INDUSTRIAL, 
COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS AT AREA SOURCES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act, sec 112


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, April 15, 2010, A 60 day extension for proposal was 
granted on June 30, 2009.


Final, Judicial, December 16, 2010.


Abstract:


Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outlines the statutory 
requirements for EPA's stationary source air toxics program. Section 
112 mandates that EPA develop standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) for both major and area sources listed under section 112(c). 
Section 112(k) requires development of standards for area sources which 
account for 90% of the emissions in urban areas of the 30 urban (HAP) 
listed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. These area source 
standards can require control levels which are equivalent to either 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or generally available 
control technology (GACT). The Integrated Air Toxics Strategy lists 
industrial boilers and commercial/institutional boilers as area source 
categories for regulation pursuant to section 112(c). Industrial 
boilers and institutional/commercial boilers are on the list of section 
112(c)(6) source categories. In this rulemaking, EPA will develop 
standards for these source categories.


Statement of Need:


As a result of the vacatur of the Industrial Boiler MACT, the Agency 
will develop another rulemaking under

[[Page 64323]]

CAA section 112 which will reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions from this source category. Recent court decisions on other 
CAA section 112 rules will be considered in developing this regulation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act, section 112.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10
Final Action                    12/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4884. This rulemaking combines the area source rulemaking for 
boilers and the rulemaking for re-establishing the vacated NESHAP for 
boilers and process heaters. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0790


Agency Contact:
Jim Eddinger
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C439-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5426
Email: [email protected]

Robert J. Wayland
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1045
Fax: 919 541-5450
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AM44
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



136. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 
PARTICULATE MATTER

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, if appropriate, 
revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and 
secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) every 5 years. On October 17, 2006, EPA published a final rule 
to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for particulate matter to 
provide increased protection of public health and welfare. With regard 
to the primary standard for fine particles (generally referring to 
particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5), 
EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 micrograms 
per cubic meter (ug/m3) and retained the level of the annual PM2.5 
standard at 15 ug/m3. With regard to primary standards for particles 
generally less than or equal to 1 micrometers in diameter (PM10), EPA 
retained the 24-hour PM10 standard and revoked the annual PM10 
standard. With regard to secondary PM standards, EPA made them 
identical in all respects to the primary PM standards, as revised. EPA 
initiated the current review in 2007 with a workshop to discuss key 
policy-relevant issues around which EPA would structure the review. 
This review includes the preparation of an Integrated Science 
Assessment, Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a Policy Assessment Document 
by EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee and the public. These documents inform the 
Administrator's decision as to whether to retain or revise the 
standards.


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under 
section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards 
are established for the protection of public health, while 
``secondary'' standards are to protect against public welfare or 
ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of 
the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter are 
whether to retain or revise the existing standards and, if revisions 
are necessary, the forms and levels of the revised standards. Options 
for these alternatives will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
information that may be useful in considering different implementation 
strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit 
information is not developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until 
sufficient policy and scientific information is available to narrow 
potential options for the form and level associated with any potential 
revisions to the standard. Therefore, work on developing the plan for 
conducting the cost and benefit analysis will generally start 1 1/2 to 
2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments will be conducted to 
evaluate health risks associated with retention or revision of the 
particulate matter standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/10
Final Action                    07/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64324]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5169; ; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/

Agency Contact:
Beth Hassett-Sipple
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4605
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-AO47
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



137. REVIEW OF THE PRIMARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR 
SULFUR DIOXIDE

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, November 16, 2009.


Final, Judicial, June 2, 2010.


Abstract:


Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, if appropriate, 
revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and 
secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) every 5 years. On May 22, 1996, EPA published a final decision 
that revisions of the primary and secondary NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) were not appropriate at that time, aside from several minor 
technical changes. That action provided the Administrator's final 
determination, after careful evaluation of comments received on the 
November 1994 proposal, that significant revisions to the primary and 
secondary NAAQS for SO2 would not be made at that time. In 2006, EPA's 
Office of Research and Development initiated the current periodic 
review of SO2 air quality criteria, the scientific basis for the NAAQS, 
with a call for information in the Federal Register. Subsequently, the 
decision was made to separate the reviews of the primary and secondary 
SO2 standards, and to combine the SO2 secondary-standard review with 
the secondary-standard review of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) due to their 
linkage in terms of effects and atmospheric chemistry. That joint 
review of the SO2 and NO2 secondary standards is part of a separate 
regulatory action described elsewhere in this Regulatory Plan under the 
identifying number (RIN) 2060-AO72. The regulatory action described 
here is for the Agency's review of the primary SO2 NAAQS. This review 
includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment, Risk/
Exposure Assessment, and a Policy Assessment. These documents were 
reviewed by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the 
public. These documents inform the Administrator's proposed decision as 
to whether to retain or revise the standards.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for SO2 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 SO2 are whether to 
retain or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
information that may be useful in considering different implementation 
strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit 
information is not developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until 
sufficient policy and scientific information is available to narrow 
potential options for the form and level associated with any potential 
revisions to the standard. Therefore, work on the developing the plan 
for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will generally start 1 1/2 
to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments were conducted to 
evaluate health risks associated with retention or revision of the SO2 
standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
Final Action                    06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5163; ; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0352


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/s--so2--index.html

[[Page 64325]]

Agency Contact:
Michael Stewart
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-7524
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-AO48
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



138. REVIEW OF THE SECONDARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 
OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND OXIDES OF SULFUR

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, July 12, 2011.


Final, Judicial, March 20, 2012, No court schedule has been ordered for 
this review as of yet. This date represents the date submitted by EPA 
to the court.


Abstract:


Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, if appropriate, 
revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and 
secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) every 5 years. On October 11, 1995, EPA published a final rule 
not to revise either the primary or secondary NAAQS for nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2). On May 22, 1996, EPA published a final decision that 
revisions of the primary and secondary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
were not appropriate at that time, aside from several minor technical 
changes. On December 9, 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development 
(ORD) initiated the current periodic review of NO2 air quality criteria 
with a call for information in the Federal Register (FR). On May 3, 
2006, ORD initiated the current periodic review of SO2 air quality 
criteria with a call for information in the FR. Subsequently, the 
decision was made to review the oxides of nitrogen and the oxides of 
sulfur together, rather than individually, with respect to a secondary 
welfare standard for NO2 and SO2. This decision derives from the fact 
that NO2, SO2, and their associated transformation products are linked 
from an atmospheric chemistry perspective, as well as from an 
environmental effects perspective, most notably in the case of 
secondary aerosol formation and acidification in ecosystems. This 
review includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment, 
Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a Policy Assessment Document by EPA, with 
opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's 
proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. It 
should be noted that this review will be limited to only the secondary 
standards; the primary standards for SO2 and NO2 are being reviewed 
separately, as described elsewhere in this Regulatory Plan under the 
identifying numbers RIN-2060-AO48 and RIN-2060-AO19, respectively.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur 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 oxides of nitrogen and 
oxides of sulfur are whether to retain or revise the existing 
standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
information that may be useful in considering different implementation 
strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit 
information is not developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until 
sufficient policy and scientific information is available to narrow 
potential options for the form and level associated with any potential 
revisions to the standard. Therefore, work on the developing the plan 
for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will generally start 1 1/2 
to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments may be conducted to 
evaluate public welfare risks associated with retention or revision of 
the NOx/SOx secondary standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10
Final Action                    11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5170; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145


Agency Contact:
Anne Rea
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C539-02
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-0053
Fax: 919 541-0905
Email: [email protected]

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]
RIN: 2060-AO72

[[Page 64326]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



139. CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT RULE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Title I


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On May 12, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated 
the Clean Air Interstate Rule, commonly known as CAIR (70 FR 25162). 
The CAIR used a cap and trade approach to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit 
issued an opinion finding the CAIR unlawful and vacating the rule. On 
December 23, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on the petitions for 
rehearing of the July 11 decision. The court granted EPA's petition for 
rehearing to the extent that it remanded the cases without vacatur of 
the CAIR. This ruling means that the CAIR remains in place, but that 
EPA is obligated to promulgate another rule under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D) consistent with the court's July 11 opinion. This action 
is proposing to fulfill our obligation to develop a rule consistent 
with the July 11, 2008 and December 23, 2008 D.C. Court decisions.


Statement of Need:


The Clean Air Transport Rule is necessary to help states address 
interstate transport of pollutants from upwind states to downwind 
nonattainment areas. Specifically, the rule is needed to respond to the 
remand of the Clean Air Interstate Rule by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Air Transport Rule is needed to help states address the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. This 
section requires States to prohibit emissions that contribute 
significantly to downwind nonattainment with the national ambient air 
quality standards, or which interfere with maintaining the standards in 
those downwind states.


Alternatives:


To be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


To be determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/10
Final Action                       To Be                     Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5336; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491


Agency Contact:
Tim Smith
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C539-04
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4718
Fax: 919 541-5489
Email: [email protected]

Rhea Jones
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C539-04
RTP, NC 27709
Phone: 919 541-2940
Fax: 919 541-0824
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AP50
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



140.  REVISION TO PB AMBIENT AIR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7403; 42 USC 7410; 42 USC 7601(a); 42 USC 7611; 42 USC 7619


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 58


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On November 12, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA revised 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead and 
associated monitoring requirements. The finalized monitoring 
requirements require state and local monitoring agencies to conduct Pb 
monitoring near Pb sources emitting 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or more and 
in large urban areas referred to as Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) 
with a population of 500,000 people or more. In January 2009, EPA 
received a petition to reconsider the 1.0 tpy emission threshold from 
the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, the Coalition to End Childhood Poisoning, 
and Physicians for Social Responsibility requesting EPA reconsider the 
1.0 tpy emission threshold. EPA granted the petition to reconsider on 
July 22, 2009. This action represents the results of the EPA's 
reconsideration of the Pb monitoring requirements.


Statement of Need:


This action is in response to a petition to reconsider that the Agency 
received and granted on the Pb monitoring requirements contained in the 
revision to the Pb NAAQS (73 FR 66964).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Title I


Alternatives:


To be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


To be determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5370; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735


URL For More Information:
http://epa.gov/air/lead

[[Page 64327]]

Agency Contact:
Kevin Cavender
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C304-06
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2364
Fax: 919 541-1903
Email: [email protected]

Lewis Weinstock
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C304-06
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3661
Fax: 919 541-1903
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AP77
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



141.  PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION/TITLE V 
GREENHOUSE GAS TAILORING RULE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Title I


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In this rule, EPA will apply a tailored approach to the applicability 
major source thresholds for greenhouse gases under the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V programs of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) by temporarily raising those thresholds and setting a 
PSD significance level for greenhouse gases. EPA is anticipating that 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may soon be subject to regulation 
pursuant to the CAA.


One consequence of our subjecting GHG emissions to regulatory controls 
is that the requirements of existing air permit programs, namely the 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) preconstruction 
permitting program for major stationary sources and the title V 
operating permits program, would be triggered for GHG emission sources. 
At the current applicability levels under the CAA, tens of thousands of 
projects every year would need permits under the PSD program, and 
millions of sources would become subject to the title V program. These 
numbers of permits are orders of magnitude greater than the current 
number of permits under these permitting programs and would vastly 
exceed the administrative capacity of the permitting authorities. By 
tailoring the applicability thresholds, we will allow actions to be 
taken by EPA and states to build capacity and streamline permitting.


Statement of Need:


This action will implement a tailored approach to PSD and Title V 
applicability for GHG sources when GHG emissions become subject to 
regulation pursuant to the CAA. This will avoid the scenario where each 
year tens of thousands of new sources and modifications would 
potentially become subject to PSD review and millions of sources would 
require title V operating permits, instead replacing it with a phased 
approach that allows permitting authorities to manage or obtain the 
necessary resources to handle the increased workload.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Doctrine of Administrative Necessity.


Alternatives:


Alternatives are being developed and will be presented in the preamble 
to the proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA has not completed the necessary analytical work that supports 
developing the regulatory relief costs savings associated with this 
rule. Once the analysis plan/work is completed, the Agency will compile 
and present the information.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5192; EPA Docket information: EOPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/nsr

Agency Contact:
Joseph Mangino
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-9778
Fax: 919 685-3105
Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Snyder
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-05
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3003
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AP86
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



142.  RECONSIDERATION OF THE 2008 OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR 
QUALITY STANDARDS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, December 21, 2009, Promised proposal to court by 12/21/
2009.


Abstract:


On March 12, 2008, EPA announced the final decision on the ozone 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Soon after that 
decision was signed on 3/27/08 (73 FR 16436), the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC) held an unsolicited public meeting and 
criticized EPA for setting primary and secondary standards that were 
not consistent with advice provided by the CASAC during review of the 
NAAQS. On 7/25/08, several environmental and industry petitioners, as 
well as a number of States, sued EPA on the NAAQS decision, and the 
Court set a briefing schedule for the consolidated cases on 12/23/08. 
On 3/10/09, EPA requested that the Court vacate the briefing schedule 
and hold the consolidated cases in abeyance for 180 days. This request 
for extension was made to allow time for appropriate

[[Page 64328]]

EPA officials appointed by the new Administration to determine whether 
the standards established in March 2008 should be maintained, modified 
or otherwise reconsidered. Announcement of reconsideration of the March 
2008 NAAQS decision occurred on 9/16/09. The current rulemaking 
schedule calls for a NAAQS proposal (including a proposal to stay 
implementation designations for the March 2008 NAAQS) to be signed by 
12/15/09, with the final rule to be signed by 8/31/10. Reconsideration 
of the NAAQS will be limited to information and supporting 
documentation available to EPA and in the docket at the time of the 
March 2008 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. As outlined in 
the abstract of this Regulatory Plan entry, this reconsideration is in 
response to actions by the courts regarding the last review in 2008.


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. Decisions on these 
alternatives will be summarized in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is being prepared that presents the 
costs and benefits associated with the proposed revised ozone standards 
and potential alternative standards. This RIA will be made available 
when the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published.


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 associated with retention or revision of the 
ozone standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Agency Contact:
David 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]
Related RIN: Related to 2060-AN24
RIN: 2060-AP98
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



143.  LEAD; CLEARANCE AND CLEARANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR 
THE RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2601(c); 15 USC 2682(c)(3); 15 USC 2684; 15 USC 2686; 15 USC 
2687


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, April 22, 2010, Signature.


Final, Judicial, July 15, 2011, Signature.


Abstract:


EPA intends to propose several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, 
training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 
practice standards for persons performing renovations for compensation 
in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. Current 
requirements include training renovators, other renovation workers, and 
dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling 
technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of 
renovation and dust sampling technician training; for renovation work 
practices; and for recordkeeping. EPA is particularly concerned about 
dust lead hazards generated by renovations because children, especially 
younger children, are at risk for high exposures of lead-based paint 
dust via hand-to-mouth exposure. For this particular action, EPA will 
consider whether to establish additional requirements to ensure that 
renovation work areas are adequately cleaned after renovation work is 
finished and before the areas are re-occupied. These additional 
requirements may include dust wipe testing after renovations and 
ensuring that renovation work areas meet clearance standards before re-
occupancy.


Statement of Need:


EPA is particularly concerned about dust lead hazards generated by 
renovations because children, especially younger children, are at risk 
for high exposures of lead-based paint dust via hand-to-mouth exposure. 
This rulemaking revision is being considered in response to a 
settlement agreement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 
EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-
based paint hazards in target housing, which is defined by statute to 
cover most pre-1978 housing, public buildings built before 1978, and 
commercial buildings.


Alternatives:


The additional requirements may include dust wipe testing after

[[Page 64329]]

renovations and ensuring that renovation work areas meet clearance 
standards before re-occupancy.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10
Final Action                    07/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5380


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Agency Contact:
Cindy Wheeler
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0484
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]

Michelle Price
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0744
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ57
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



144. STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS 
GENERATED BY COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is for the development of regulations for coal combustion 
residuals (formerly coal combustion waste). The regulations will apply 
to waste management units at facilities that manage coal combustion 
residuals generated by steam electric power generators, i.e., electric 
utilities and independent power producers. This action results from 
EPA's regulatory determination for fossil fuel combustion wastes (see 
65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000), which concluded that waste management 
regulations under RCRA are appropriate for certain coal combustion 
residuals (wastes). The intended benefits of this action will be to 
prevent contamination or damage to ground waters and surface waters, 
thereby avoiding risk to human health and the environment, including 
ecological risks, while monitoring the benefits of beneficial use of 
coal ash residues. The Agency issued on August 29, 2007, a Notice of 
Data Availability (NODA) announcing the availability for public 
inspection and comment of new information and data on the management of 
coal combustion wastes that the Agency will consider in deciding next 
steps in this effort. The comment period for this NODA closed on 
February 11, 2008. EPA is currently preparing a proposed rule for the 
regulation of coal combustion residuals.


Statement of Need:


There is a need to assess risks associated with the management of coal 
combustion residuals and the most effective regulatory option to 
address them.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act


Alternatives:


To be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


To be determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NODA                            08/29/07                    72 FR 49714
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


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


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4470. EPA publication information: NODA - http://
frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi? WAISdocID=623368417775 
+2+0+0& WAISaction=retrieve -- This effort will also affect Federal, 
state, local or tribal governments that own coal-burning commercial 
electric power generating facilities. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2006-0796


Sectors Affected:


221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation


Agency Contact:
Alexander Livnat
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7251
Fax: 703 605-0595
Email: [email protected]

Steve Souders
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5306P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8431
Fax: 703 605-0595
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE81
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



145. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


CWA 101; CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 308; CWA 316; CWA 401; CWA 402; CWA 501; 
CWA 510

[[Page 64330]]

CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 124; 40 CFR 125


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that 
the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water 
intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for 
minimizing adverse environmental impacts. In developing regulations to 
implement section 316(b), EPA divided its effort into three rulemaking 
phases. Phase II, for existing electric generating plants that use at 
least 50 MGD of cooling water, was completed in July 2004. Industry and 
environmental stakeholders challenged the Phase II regulations. On 
review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded 
several key provisions. In July 2007, EPA suspended Phase II and has 
now initiated a new 316(b) Phase II rulemaking. Following the decision 
in the Second Circuit, several parties petitioned the U.S. Supreme 
Court to review that decision, and the Supreme Court granted the 
petitions, limited to the issue of whether the Clean Water Act 
authorized EPA to consider the relationship of costs and benefits in 
establishing section 316(b) standards. On April 1, 2009, the Supreme 
Court reversed the Second Circuit, finding that the Agency may consider 
cost-benefit analysis in its decision-making. This finding did not hold 
that the Agency must consider costs and benefits in these decisions. 
EPA issued the Phase III regulation, covering existing electric 
generating plants using less than 50 MGD of cooling water, and all 
existing manufacturing facilities, in June 2006. EPA will accept a 
voluntary remand of the Phase III regulation for existing facilities, 
in order to issue a regulation covering both Phase II and III 
facilities, and to do so in a consistent manner. EPA expects this new 
rulemaking will similarly apply to the approximately 900 existing 
electric generating and manufacturing plants.


Statement of Need:


In the absence of national regulations, NPDES permit writers have 
developed requirements to implement section 316(b) on a case-by-case 
basis. This may result in a range of different requirements, and, in 
some cases, delays in permit issuance or reissuance. This regulation 
may have substantial ecological benefits.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish best technology available 
standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water 
intake structures. On February 16, 2004, EPA took final action on 
regulations governing cooling water intake structures at certain 
existing power producing facilities under section 316(b) of the Clean 
Water Act (Phase II rule). 69 FR 41576 (July 9, 2004). These 
regulations were challenged, and the Second Circuit remanded several 
provisions of the Phase II rule on various grounds. Riverkeeper, Inc. 
v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83, (2d Cir., 2007). EPA suspended most of the rule in 
response to the remand. 72 FR 37107 (July 9, 2007). The remand of Phase 
III does not change permitting requirements for these facilities. Until 
the new rule is issued, permit directors continue to issue permits on a 
case-by-case, Best Professional Judgment basis for Phase II facilities.


Alternatives:


This analysis will cover various sizes and types of potentially 
regulated facilities, and control technologies. EPA is considering 
whether to regulate on a national basis, by subcategory, or by broad 
water body category.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The technologies under consideration in this rulemaking are similar to 
the technologies considered for the original Phase II and Phase III 
rules. Those costs evaluated for the Phase II remanded rule, in 2002 
dollars, ranged from $389 million (the final rule option) to $440 
million (the final rule option at proposal) to $1 billion to $3.5 
billion (closed cycle cooling for facilities on certain waterbodies, or 
at all facilities). The monetized benefits of the original final rule 
were estimated to be $82 million. The monetized benefits include only 
the use value associated with quantifiable increases in commercial and 
recreational fisheries. Non-use benefits were not analyzed. The costs 
and benefits of the Phase III option most closely aligned with the 
Phase II option co-promulgated were $38.3 million and $2.3 million 
respectively, in 2004 dollars. EPA will develop new costs and benefits 
estimates for this new effort.


Risks:


Cooling water intake structures may pose significant risks for aquatic 
ecosystems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10
Final Action                    07/00/12

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5210; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b

Agency Contact:
Paul Shriner
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1076
Email: [email protected]

Jan Matuszko
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1035
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE95
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




146. REVIEW OF THE PRIMARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR 
NITROGEN DIOXIDE

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 26, 2009.


Final, Judicial, January 22, 2010.


Abstract:


Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and, if appropriate,

[[Page 64331]]

revise the air quality criteria for the primary (health-based) and 
secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) every 5 years. On October 8, 1996, EPA published a final rule 
not to revise either the primary or secondary NAAQS for nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2). That action provided the Administrator's final 
determination, after careful evaluation of comments received on the 
October 1995 proposal, that revisions to neither the primary nor the 
secondary NAAQS for NO2 were appropriate at that time. On December 9, 
2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development initiated the current 
periodic review of NO2 air quality criteria, the scientific basis for 
the NAAQS, with a call for information in the Federal Register. 
Subsequently, the decision was made to separate the reviews of the 
primary and secondary NO2 standards, and to combine the NO2 secondary-
standard review with the secondary-standard review of Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) due to their linkage in terms of effects and atmospheric 
chemistry. That joint review of the SO2 and NO2 secondary standards is 
part of a separate regulatory action described elsewhere in this 
Regulatory Plan under the identifying number RIN-2060-AO72. The 
regulatory action described here is for the Agency's review of the 
primary NO2 NAAQS. This includes the preparation of an Integrated 
Science Assessment, Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a Policy Assessment 
Document by EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air 
Scientific Advisory Committee and the public. These documents inform 
the Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise 
the standards. On July 15, 2009, a proposed rule was published that 
would establish a new, short-term (1-hour) standard in the range of 80 
to 100 parts per billion. This action included a proposal to revise the 
NO2 monitoring network to include monitors near major roadways.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for NO2 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 NO2 are whether to 
retain or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
information that may be useful in considering different implementation 
strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. Cost and benefit 
information is not developed to support a NAAQS rulemaking until 
sufficient policy and scientific information is available to narrow 
potential options for the form and level associated with any potential 
revisions to the standard. Therefore, work on the developing the plan 
for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will generally start 1 1/2 
to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments will be conducted to 
evaluate health risks associated with retention or revision of the NO2 
standards


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/15/09                    74 FR 34403
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5111; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-15944.pdf; EPA Docket information: 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/

Agency Contact:
Scott Jenkins
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C445-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1167
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-AO19
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



147. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW MARINE COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES 
AT OR ABOVE 30 LITERS PER CYLINDER

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7545; 42 USC 7547


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 80; 40 CFR 94; 40 CFR 1042; 40 CFR 1065


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, December 17, 2009.


Abstract:


Category 3 marine diesel engines (those with per cylinder displacement 
greater than 30 liters) are very large engines that are used for 
propulsion power in ocean-going vessels. Emissions from these engines 
contribute significantly to unhealthful levels of ambient particulate 
matter and ozone in many parts of the United States. These engines are 
highly mobile and are not easily controlled at a state or local level. 
EPA currently regulates emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines 
on ships flagged in the United States. This rulemaking will consider 
long-term nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards for new Category 3 marine 
diesel engines that would require the use of high efficiency 
aftertreatment technology. We are considering standards equivalent to 
the limits for NOx recently adopted by the International Maritime 
Organization,

[[Page 64332]]

which are based on the position advanced by the United States 
Government as part of the international negotiations. We are also 
considering a revision to our diesel fuel program under the Act to 
allow for the manufacture and sale of marine diesel fuel with a sulfur 
content up to 1,000 ppm for use in Category 3 engines. The proposal 
would be part of a coordinated strategy, the other components of which 
would consist of the new amendments to MARPOL Annex VI that will extend 
these standards to foreign vessels (through the Act to Prevent 
Pollution from Ships) and pursuing Emission Control Area (ECA) 
designation for U.S. coastal areas in accordance with MARPOL Annex VI. 
Implementation of this coordinated strategy will ensure that all ships 
that affect U.S. air quality meet stringent NOx and fuel sulfur 
requirements. A recent D.C. Circuit decision (February 2009) upheld 
EPA's deadline of 12/17/09 based on EPA's commitment in the regulation 
to meet that deadline for the final Category 3 rule.


Statement of Need:


There is a need to reduce emissions from Category 3 marine diesel 
engines to achieve significant public health benefits and help states 
and localities attain and maintain PM and ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards. These large diesel engines generate significant 
emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 
sulfur oxides (SOx), as well as hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide 
(CO), and hazardous air pollutants or air toxics that are associated 
with adverse health effects. Without further action, by 2030, NOx 
emissions from ships are projected to more than double, growing to 2.1 
million tons a year, while annual PM2.5 emissions are expected to 
almost triple to 170,000 tons. By 2030, the coordinated strategy 
described in this rule is expected to reduce annual emissions of NOx in 
the United States by about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter (PM) 
emissions by about 143,000 tons, and prevent between 13,000 and 32,000 
premature deaths annually.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Authority for this regulatory action is granted to the Environmental 
Protections Agency by sections 114, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 213, 
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
7414, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7545, 7547, 7550 and 7601(a)), and 
by sections 1901-1915 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 
USC 1909 et seq.).


The authority for the fuel requirements is provided in section 211 (c) 
of the Clean Air Act, which allow EPA to regulate fuels that contribute 
to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare (42 U.S.C. 
7545 (c)). Additional support for the procedural and enforcement-
related aspects of the fuel controls in the proposed rule, including 
the record keeping requirements, comes from sections 114 (a) and 301 
(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Sections 7414 (a) and 7601 (a)). The 
authority for the engine requirements is provided in section 213(a)(3) 
of the Clean Air Act, which directs the Administrator to set standards 
regulating emissions of NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or CO 
for classes or categories of engines, like marine diesel engines, that 
contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in more than one 
nonattainment area. Section 208, which requires manufacturers and other 
persons subject to Title II requirements to ``provide information the 
Administrator may reasonably require . . . to otherwise carry out the 
provisions of this part. . . '' provides authority for a PM measurement 
requirement. The authority to implement and enforce the Category 3 
marine diesel emission standard is provided in Section 213(d) which 
specifies that the standards EPA adopts for marine diesel engines 
``shall be subject to Sections 206, 207, 208, and 209 of the Clean Air 
Act, with such modifications that the Administrator deems appropriate 
to the regulations implementing these sections.'' In addition, the 
marine standards ``shall be enforced in the same manner as [motor 
vehicle] standards prescribed under section 202'' of the Act. Section 
213 (d) also grants EPA authority to promulgate or revise regulations 
as necessary to determine compliance with and enforce standards adopted 
under section 213. Authority to implement MARPOL Annex VI is provided 
in section 1903 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). 
Section 1903 gives the Administrator the authority to prescribe any 
necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of 
Regulations 12 through 19 of Annex VI.


Alternatives:


Several alternatives were considered as part of this rulemaking, 
including a mandatory cold ironing requirement; earlier adoption of the 
Tier 3 NOx limits; and standards for existing engines, including a 
mandatory remanufacture program, the MARPOL Annex VI program for 
existing engines, and a Voluntary Marine Verification Program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A benefit-cost analysis was performed for the entire coordinated 
strategy that involves this rulemaking and the international agreements 
described above. Specifically, the estimated annual benefits of the 
coordinated strategy range between $110 and $280 billion annually in 
2030 using a three percent discount rate, or between $100 and $260 
billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate, compared to estimated 
social costs of approximately $3.1 billion in that same year. Though 
there are a number of health and environmental effects associated with 
the coordinated strategy that we are unable to quantify or monetize, 
the projected benefits of the coordinated strategy far outweigh the 
projected costs. Using a conservative benefits estimate, the 2030 
benefits are expected to outweigh the costs by at least a factor of 32 
and could be as much as a factor of 90.


Risks:


The failure to set new tiers of standards for Category 3 marine diesel 
engines risks continued increases in exposure to elevated levels of 
ambient ozone and particulate matter emissions, particularly for 
populations in port areas and along coastal waterways but also for 
populations located well inland. These elevated levels risk additional 
premature mortality and other health and environmental impacts that 
could otherwise be avoided.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/07/07                    72 FR 69521
ANPRM Comment Period End        03/06/08
NPRM                            08/28/09                    74 FR 44441
NPRM Comment Period End         09/28/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 64333]]

International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5129. EPA publication information: ANPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/December/Day-07/a23556.htm-- EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

Agency Contact:
Jean Revelt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAR/OTAQ/ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4822
Fax: 734 214-4050
Email: [email protected]

Michael Samulski
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
OAR/OTAQ/ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4532
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AO38
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



148. RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Section 211(o)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 86; 40 CFR 80


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 19, 2008.


Abstract:


This rulemaking will implement provisions in Title II of the 2007 
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that amend Section 211(o) 
of the Clean Air Act. The amendments revise the National Renewable 
Fuels Standard Program in the United States, increasing the national 
requirement to a total of 36 billion gallons of total renewable fuel in 
2022. Application of the new standards now apply to diesel fuel 
producers in addition to gasoline producers and to nonroad fuels in 
addition to highway fuels. The new requirements also establish new 
renewable fuel categories and specific volume standards for cellulosic 
and advanced renewable fuels, biomass based diesel and total renewable 
fuels. Further, the amendments establish new eligibility requirements 
for meeting the renewable fuel standards including application of a 
specific definition for biomass, restrictions on what land feedstocks 
can come from and establish minimum lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction 
thresholds for the various categories of renewable fuels.


Statement of Need:


This action is directed by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security 
Act. It requires EPA to implement the amendments to Clean Air Act 
Section 211(o) - The Renewable Fuels Standard Program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Section 211(o).


Alternatives:


A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register 
on May 26, 2009. The proposal includes a number of proposed approaches 
as well as alternative approaches to implement the new standards. The 
public comment period will close on September 25, 2009.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The economic analyses that support the proposed rule do not reflect all 
of the potentially quantifiable economic impacts. There are several key 
impacts that remain incomplete as a result of time and resource 
constraints necessary to complete the proposed rule, including the 
economic impact analysis and the air quality and health impacts 
analysis (see Section II.B.3). As a result, this proposal does not 
combine economic impacts in an attempt to compare costs and benefits, 
in order to avoid presenting an incomplete and potentially misleading 
characterization. For the final rule, when the planned analyses are 
complete and current analyses updated, we will provide a consistent 
cost-benefit comparison. However, the following is offered in 
reflection of some of the benefits and costs associated with certain 
aspects of the proposed rule. Initial estimates indicate that the 
expanded use of renewable fuels will result in a reduction of 6.8 
billion tons of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions in 2022. This is 
equivalent to removing about 24 million vehicles off the road. Also, 36 
billion gallons of renewable fuel will displace about 15 billion 
gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel, which represents 
about 11% of annual gasoline and diesel consumption in 2022. Total 
energy security benefits associated with a reduction of U.S. imported 
oil is $12.38/barrel. Based upon the $12.38/barrel figure, total energy 
security benefits associated with this proposal were calculated at $3.7 
billion. Increases in gasoline and diesel fuel costs are equivalent to 
$4 billion to $18 billion in 2022. Estimates on U.S. food costs would 
increase by $10 per person per year by 2022 while net U.S. farm income 
would increase by $7.1 billion dollars (10.6%).


Risks:


Analysis of criteria and toxic emission impacts is performed relative 
to several different reference cases. Overall we project the proposed 
program will result in significant increases in ethanol and 
acetaldehyde emissions. We project more modest but still significant 
increases in acrolein, NOx, formaldehyde and PM. However, we project 
today's action will result in decreased ammonia emissions (due to 
reductions in livestock agricultural activity), decreased CO emissions 
(driven primarily by the impacts of ethanol on exhaust emissions from 
vehicles and nonroad equipment), and decreased benzene emissions (due 
to displacement of gasoline with ethanol in the fuel pool). Discussion 
and a breakdown of these results by the fuel production / distribution 
and vehicle and equipment emissions are presented in the NPRM. The 
aggregate nationwide emission inventory impacts presented here will 
likely lead to health impacts throughout the U.S. due to changes in 
future-year ambient air quality. However, emissions changes alone are 
not a good indication of local or regional air quality and health 
impacts, as there may be highly localized impacts such as increased 
emissions from ethanol plants and evaporative emissions from cars, and 
decreased emissions from gasoline refineries. For the final rule, a 
national-scale air quality modeling analysis will be performed to 
analyze the impacts of the proposed standards. Further, as the 
production of biofuels increases to meet the requirements of this 
proposed rule, there may be adverse impacts on both

[[Page 64334]]

water quality and quantity. Increased production of biofuels may lead 
to increased application of fertilizer and pesticides and increased 
soil erosion, which could impact water quality.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/26/09                    74 FR 24903
NPRM Comment Period End         07/27/09
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/07/09                    74 FR 32091
NPRM Extended Comment 
    Period End                  09/25/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5250. EPA publication information: NPRM - http://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-10978.pdf-- EPA Docket information: 
EPA--HQ-- OAR--2005--0161


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htmnotices

Agency Contact:
Paul Argyropoulos
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6520J ARN
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1123
Fax: 202 564-1686
Email: [email protected]

David Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
AAFC
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4507
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AO81
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



149. ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES 
UNDER SECTION 202(A) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7521(a)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On April 24, 2009, the Administrator published a proposed Endangerment 
Finding under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. This proposed 
finding had two components. First, the Administrator proposed to find 
that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key 
greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 
hexafluoride (SF6) - in the atmosphere endanger the public health and 
welfare of current and future generations through climate change. In 
the second component of the proposal, known as the Cause or Contribute 
Finding, the Administrator further proposed to find that the combined 
emissions of four of these six greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations 
of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate 
change. EPA has not proposed in this action any new regulation of motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle emissions.


Statement of Need:


This action responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts 
v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), in which the court found that greenhouse 
gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court held that the 
Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse 
gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines cause or 
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too 
uncertain to make a reasoned decision.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis is Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This action does not include any proposed standards and does not itself 
impose any requirements on industry or other entities.


Risks:


The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur 
in the future include, but are not limited to, more frequent and 
intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded air quality, more 
heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level 
rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to 
agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposal                        04/24/09                    74 FR 18886
Final                           12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Previously reported as RIN 2060-ZA14. SAN No. 5335; EPA publication 
information: Proposal - http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/April/
Day-24/a9339.pdf. EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Agency Contact:
Rona Birnbaum
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6207J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9076
Fax: 202 565-2140
Email: [email protected]

Ben DeAngelo
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6207J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9107
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AP55

[[Page 64335]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



150.  EPA/NHTSA JOINT RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH LIGHT-DUTY 
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS AND CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY 
STANDARDS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Section 202(a)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA plans to set national emissions standards under section 202 (a) of 
the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 
passenger cars and light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 
vehicles, as part of a joint rulemaking with National Highway Traffic 
and Safety Administration (NHTSA). This joint rulemaking effort was 
announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009. The GHG standards would 
significantly reduce the GHG emissions from these light-duty vehicles. 
The standards would be phased in beginning with the 2012 model year 
through model year 2016. EPA and NHTSA expect to propose the rules by 
late summer 2009. EPA's final action would only occur if EPA determines 
that emissions of greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare, and that emissions from new motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric 
concentrations of these greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of 
climate change. EPA has already proposed these findings. (74 FR 18886; 
April 24, 2009)


Statement of Need:


EPA recently proposed to find that emissions of greenhouse gases from 
new motor vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution 
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and 
welfare. Therefore, there is a need to reduce GHG emissions from light-
duty vehicles to protect public health and welfare. The light-duty 
vehicle sector, which includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles, accounts for approximately 60% of all 
U.S. transportation sector GHG emissions. This rulemaking would 
significantly reduce GHG emissions from model year 2012 through 2016 
light-duty vehicles. This rulemaking is also consistent with the 
National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 
2009, responding to the country's critical need to address global 
climate change and reduce oil consumption.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 202(a)(1) provides broad authority to regulate new ``motor 
vehicles,'' which include light duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles (hereafter light vehicles). While other 
provisions of Title II address specific model years and emissions of 
motor vehicles, section 202(a)(1) provides the authority that EPA would 
use to regulate GHGs from new light vehicles. Section 202(a)(1) states 
``the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to 
time revise). . . standards applicable to the emission of any air 
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles . . . , which 
in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' Any 
such standards ``shall be applicable to such vehicles . . . for their 
useful life.'' Finalizing the light vehicle regulations would be 
contingent upon EPA finalizing both the endangerment finding and cause 
or contribute finding that emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.


Alternatives:


The rulemaking proposal will include an evaluation of regulatory 
alternatives that can be considered in addition to the Agency's primary 
proposal. In addition, the proposal is expected to include tools such 
as averaging, banking and trading of emissions credits as alternative 
approaches for compliance with the proposed program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


According to EPA's preliminary analysis, the standards under 
consideration are projected to reduce GHGs by approximately 900 million 
metric tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the 
program for MY 2012 -- 2016 vehicles. The program would reduce GHG 
emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by 19 percent by 2030. EPA 
estimates an average increased cost of about $1,300 per vehicle in 2016 
compared to today's vehicles. However, the typical driver would save 
enough in lower fuel costs over the first three years to offset the 
higher vehicle cost. Over the life of a vehicle, drivers would save 
about $2,800 through the fuel savings that come from controlling GHG 
emissions. Detailed analysis of economy-wide cost impacts, greenhouse 
gas emission reductions, and societal benefits will be performed during 
the rulemaking process.


Risks:


GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles are responsible for almost 60 
percent of all U.S. transportation-related GHGs, and increase the risk 
of unacceptable climate change impacts.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/28/09                    74 FR 49454
NPRM Comment Period End         11/27/09
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5344; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472


Agency Contact:
Robin Moran
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4781
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]

Chris Lieske
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4584
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AK50
RIN: 2060-AP58

[[Page 64336]]

_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



151.  PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD): 
RECONSIDERATION OF INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS THAT DETERMINE 
POLLUTANTS COVERED BY THE FEDERAL PSD PERMIT PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Administrative Procedure Act sec 553(e)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action concerns the EPA's interpretation of the regulatory phrase 
``subject to regulation'' as it applies to the federal Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (more specifically, in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(50)). At issue is a December 18, 2008, memorandum, titled 
``EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered 
By Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 
Program,'' which specified that a pollutant is only ``subject to 
regulation'' when its emissions are actually controlled or limited 
under a provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA) or a final EPA rule issued 
under the authority of the CAA. Following issuance of the memo, EPA 
received a petition for reconsideration from the Sierra Club and 
several other organizations. The petitioners argued that EPA's issuance 
of the Memo violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative 
Procedures Act and the CAA, and the Memo's interpretation conflicted 
with prior agency actions. On February 17, 2009, the Administrator 
granted reconsideration on the December 18, 2008, memorandum in order 
to allow for public comment on the issues raised in the Memo and in a 
related decision of the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Thus, EPA 
will proceed with a reconsideration proceeding and conduct rulemaking 
regarding the proper interpretation of this regulatory phrase.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to ensure a common understanding of when a 
new pollutant becomes ``subject to regulation'' and thereby subject to 
PSD permitting requirements. In light of the petitioners' request, EPA 
believes that soliciting comment on the December 18, 2008, 
interpretation, as well as other feasible options, is warranted.


Summary of Legal Basis:


APA 553(e).


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/07/09                    74 FR 51535
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5377


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/nsr

Agency Contact:
Dave Svendsgaard
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2380
Fax: 919 685-3105
Email: [email protected]

Raj Rao
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-02
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5344
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AP87
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



152.  LEAD; AMENDMENT TO THE OPT-OUT AND RECORDKEEPING 
PROVISIONS IN THE RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM

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 2601(c); 15 USC 2682(c)(3); 15 USC 2684; 15 USC 2686; 15 USC 
2687


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, October 20, 2009, Signature.


Final, Judicial, April 22, 2010, Signature.


Abstract:


EPA intends to propose several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, 
training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 
practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation 
in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. This particular 
action will involve proposing amendments to the opt-out provision that 
currently exempts a renovator from the training and work practice 
requirements of the rule where he or she obtains a certification from 
the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 
or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-
occupied facility. EPA will propose revisions that involve renovation 
firms providing the owner with a copy of the records they are currently 
required to maintain to demonstrate compliance with the training and 
work practice requirements of the RRP rule and, if different, providing 
the information to the occupant of the building being renovated or the 
operator of the child-occupied facility. EPA will also propose various 
minor amendments to the regulations concerning applications for 
training provider accreditation, amending accreditations, course 
completion certificates, recordkeeping, State and Tribal program 
requirements, and grandfathering (i.e., taking a refresher training in 
lieu of the initial training). In addition, the proposed amendments 
intend to clarify that certain requirements apply to the RRP rule as 
well as the Lead-based Paint Activities (abatement) regulations, that a 
certified inspector or risk assessor can act as a dust sampling 
technician, which hands-on training topics are required for renovator 
and dust sampling technician courses, and

[[Page 64337]]

requirements for States and Tribes that apply to become authorized to 
implement the RRP program.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking revisions is being considered in response to a 
settlement agreement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 
EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-
based paint hazards in target housing, which is defined by statute to 
cover most pre-1978 housing, public buildings built before 1978, and 
commercial buildings.


Alternatives:


The original proposal considered several options on these points. In 
addition, EPA will identify other alternatives to evaluate. The 
alternatives were not, however, available at the time that this form 
was completed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under development and not available at the time that this form was 
completed.


Risks:


Under development and not available at the time that this form was 
completed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/28/09                    74 FR 55506
NPRM Comment Period End         11/27/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5379


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Agency Contact:
Marc Edmonds
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0758
Fax: 202 566-0741
Email: [email protected]

Michelle Price
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0744
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AJ55
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



153. 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:


On December 5, 2008, EPA amended the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to provide increased clarity with respect to 
specific regulatory requirements, to tailor requirements to particular 
industry sectors, and to streamline certain rule requirements. The 
Agency subsequently delayed the effective date of these amendments to 
January 14, 2010 to allow the Agency time to review the amendments to 
ensure that they properly reflect consideration of all relevant facts. 
EPA also requested public comment on the delay of the effective date 
and its duration, and on the December 2008 amendments. EPA is reviewing 
the record for the amendments and the additional comments to determine 
if any changes are warranted.


Statement of Need:


The final 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 final 
rule, following receipt of public comments.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The principal effect of the final amendments would be lower compliance 
costs for owners and operators of certain types of facilities and 
equipment. Preliminary cost savings for this rulemaking effort is 
estimated to be between $92-100 million.


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 final 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-Year Compliance 
    Extension                   06/17/04                    69 FR 34014
Final 18 Months 
    Compliance Extension        08/11/04                    69 FR 48794
NODA : Certain Facilities       09/20/04                    69 FR 56184
NODA: Oil-Filled and 
    Process Equipment           09/20/04                    69 FR 56182
NPRM                            10/15/07                    72 FR 58377
Final Action                    12/05/08                    73 FR 74236
Notice to Delay Effective 
    Date                        02/03/09                     74 FR 5900
Delay of Effective Date         04/01/09                    74 FR 14736
Final Action 2         12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2634.2; EPA publication information: Notice Clarifying Certain 
Issues - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=2004

[[Page 64338]]

--register &docid=fr25my04-49.pdf; Split from RIN 2050-AC62.; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/oilspill/spcc.htm

Agency Contact:
Vanessa Principe
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-7913
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AG16
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA



154. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 
AND DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 306; CWA 501


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2008, FR Publication by 12/1/2008 as per 
12/5/2006 Court Order.


Final, Judicial, December 1, 2009, FR Publication by 12/1/2009 as per 
12/5/2006 Court Order.


Abstract:


In a November 28, 2008 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to establish 
effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance 
standards (NSPSs) for the Construction and Development point source 
category. This rulemaking and its schedule respond to a court order 
that requires the Agency to publish final regulations by December 1, 
2009. The ELGs and NSPSs would control the discharge of pollutants such 
as sediment, turbidity, nutrients and metals in discharges from 
construction activities and will be implemented through the issuance of 
NPDES permits. EPA solicited comments on a range of erosion and 
sediment control measures and pollution prevention measures. The 
proposed requirements vary by size of the construction site and by 
other factors, such as rainfall intensity and clay content of soil. The 
proposed rule was intended to work in concert with existing state and 
local programs, adding a technology-based ``floor'' that establishes 
minimum requirements that would apply nationally. Once implemented, 
these new requirements would significantly reduce the amount of 
sediment, turbidity, and other pollutants discharged from construction 
sites.


Statement of Need:


Despite substantial improvements in the nation's water quality since 
the inception of the Clean Water Act, 45 percent of assessed river and 
stream miles, 47 percent of assessed lake acres, and 32 percent of 
assessed square miles of estuaries show impairments from a wide range 
of sources. Improper control of stormwater discharges from construction 
activity is among the many contributors to remaining water quality 
problems throughout the United States. Sediment is one of the primary 
pollutants that cause water quality impairment for streams and rivers. 
Construction generates significantly higher loads of sediment per acre 
than other sources. The rulemaking would constitute the nationally 
applicable, technology-based ELGs and NSPS applicable to all 
dischargers required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to establish ELGs and NSPS to limit 
the pollutants discharged from point sources. In addition, EPA is bound 
by the district court decision, in NRDC v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137, 
(C.D. Cal.2006), to propose ELGs and NSPS for the construction and 
development industry by December 1, 2008 and to promulgate ELGs and 
NSPS as soon as practicable, but in no event later than December 1, 
2009.


Alternatives:


The Clean Water Act directs EPA to establish a technology basis for the 
ELGs and NSPS, which are based on the performance of specific 
technology levels, such as the best available technology economically 
achievable. EPA is considering a range of pollution control approaches 
and technologies, and is also considering waivers based on construction 
site size, rainfall, and soil erosivity to reduce the impact on small 
dischargers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The annualized social costs of the proposed rulemaking were estimated 
to range from $141 million to $3.8 billion, and the annualized 
monetized benefits were estimated to range from $11 million to $327 
million. The costs include compliance costs, administrative costs, and 
partial equilibrium estimates of quantity effects and deadweight loss 
to society. The monetized benefit categories include avoided costs of 
dredging for navigation and water storage, avoided costs of drinking 
water treatment, and monetizable water quality benefits. These costs 
may change in the final rule.


Risks:


Sediment is currently one of the primary pollutants that cause water 
quality impairment for streams and rivers and present a risk to aquatic 
life. The ELGs and NSPS are expected to result in a reduction of the 
discharge of pollutants to surface waters, primarily as sediment and 
turbidity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/28/08                    73 FR 72561
NPRM Comment Period End         02/26/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5119; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-27848.pdf; EPA Docket information: 
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465


URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/

[[Page 64339]]

Agency Contact:
Jesse Pritts
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1038
Fax: 202 566-1053
Email: [email protected]

Janet Goodwin
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1060
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AE91
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

[[Page 64340]]




EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory 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; Titles I 
and V 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. Effective 
November 21, 2009, the EEOC will enforce Title II of the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits 
employment discrimination based on genetic information.
The first item in this Regulatory Plan is titled ``Regulations To 
Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act Amendments Act.'' On September 25, 2008, the President 
signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 
(``ADA Amendments Act'' or ``Act''). The Act makes important changes to 
the definition of the term ``disability'' by rejecting the holdings in 
several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC's ADA regulations. 
The Act retains the ADA's basic definition of ``disability'' as an 
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, 
a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an 
impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms 
should be interpreted in several ways.
The second item in this Regulatory Plan is titled ``Reasonable Factors 
Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act''. In 
March 2008, the EEOC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
concerning disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act. 73 FR 16807 (March 31, 2008). In this NPRM, the Commission asked 
whether EEOC regulations should provide more information on the meaning 
of ``reasonable factors other than age'' (RFOA) and if so, what the 
regulations should say. After consideration of the public comments, and 
in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Smith v. City of Jackson, 
544 U.S. 228 (2005), and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 
------, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008), the Commission believes it is 
appropriate to issue a new NPRM to address the scope of the RFOA 
defense. Accordingly, before finalizing its regulations concerning 
disparate impact under the ADEA, the Commission intends to publish a 
new NPRM proposing to amend its regulations concerning RFOA.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement 
was reviewed and approved by the Acting Chairman of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.
_______________________________________________________________________



EEOC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




155. REASONABLE FACTORS OTHER THAN AGE UNDER THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN 
EMPLOYMENT ACT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 628


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1625.7(b),(c)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On March 31, 2008, the EEOC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) concerning disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act. 73 FR 16807 (March 31, 2008). In addition to requesting 
public comment on the proposed rule, the Commission asked whether 
regulations should provide more information on the meaning of 
``reasonable factors other than age'' (RFOA) and, if so, what the 
regulations should say. After consideration of the public comments, and 
in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Smith v. City of Jackson, 
544 U.S. 228 (2005), and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 
------, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008), the Commission believes it is 
appropriate to issue a new NPRM to address the scope of the RFOA 
defense. Accordingly, before finalizing its regulations concerning 
disparate impact under the ADEA, the Commission intends to publish a 
new NPRM proposing to amend its regulations concerning RFOA.


Statement of Need:


In Smith v. City of Jackson, the Supreme Court affirmed that disparate 
impact is a cognizable theory of discrimination under the ADEA but 
indicated that ``reasonable factors other than age,'' not ``business 
necessity,'' is the appropriate model for the employer's defense 
against an impact claim. In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., the 
Supreme Court ruled that the employer has the RFOA burden of 
persuasion. Current EEOC regulations do not define the meaning of 
``RFOA.'' The EEOC is revising its regulations to address the scope of 
the RFOA defense.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The ADEA authorizes the EEOC ``to issue such rules and regulations it 
may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out this chapter. . 
..'' 29 U.S.C. section 628.


Alternatives:


The Commission will consider all alternatives offered by the public 
commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of anticipated costs and benefits have not been 
determined at this time. The Commission will explore options for 
conducting a cost benefit analysis for this regulatory action if 
necessary. This revision to EEOC's regulation, informed by the comments 
of stakeholders, will be beneficial to courts, employers, and employees 
seeking to interpret, understand, and comply with the ADEA.


Risks:


The proposed regulation will reduce the risks of liability for 
noncompliance with the statute by clarifying the RFOA defense. The 
proposal does not address risks to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64341]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Dianna B. Johnston
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street NE
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4657
Fax: 202 663-4639
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3046-AA87
_______________________________________________________________________



EEOC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




156. REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF THE 
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENTS ACT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC sec 12116 and sec 506 as redesignated under the ADA Amendments 
Act of 2008


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1630


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (``the 
Amendments Act'') was signed into law on September 25, 2008, with a 
statutory effective date of January 1, 2009. EEOC proposes to revise 
its Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations and accompanying 
interpretative guidance (29 CFR part 1630 and accompanying appendix) in 
order to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Pursuant to the 2008 
amendments, the definition of disability under the ADA shall be 
construed in favor of broad coverage to the maximun extent permitted by 
the terms of the ADA, and the determination of whether an individual 
has a disability should not demand extensive analysis. The Amendments 
Act rejects the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and 
portions of EEOC's ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to 
make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to 
establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the 
ADA.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to bring the Commission's regulations into 
compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which became effective 
January 1, 2009, and explicitly invalidated certain provisions of the 
existing regulations. The Amendments Act retains the terminology of the 
ADA's basic definition of ``disability'' as an impairment that 
substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of 
such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. 
However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be 
interpreted in several ways, therefore necessitating revision of the 
existing regulations and interpretive guidance contained in the 
accompanying ``Appendix to Part 1630--Interpretive Guidance on Title I 
of the Americans With Disabilities Act,'' which are published at 29 CFR 
part 1630. The proposed revisions to the title I regulations and 
appendix are intended to enhance predictability and consistency between 
judicial interpretations and executive enforcement of the ADA as now 
amended by Congress.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 506 of the Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2000ff-10, gives 
the EEOC the authority to issue regulations implementing the 
definitions of disability in section 12102 of this title (including 
rules of construction) and the definitions in section 12103 of this 
title, consistent with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.


Alternatives:


None: Congress mandated issuance of regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


For those employers that have 15 or more employees and are therefore 
covered by Amendments Act, the potential economic impact stems from the 
likelihood that due to the broader interpretation of ``substantially 
limited in a major life activity,'' more employees will be covered 
under the first two prongs of the definition of disability, and thus 
potentially entitled to reasonable accommodations that do not pose an 
undue hardship. However, the Amendments Act does not change the scope 
of the accommodation obligation itself, or the definition of the 
``undue hardship'' defense as ``significant difficulty or expense.'' 
The Amendments Act also reverses at least three courts of appeals 
decisions that previously permitted individuals who were merely 
``regarded as'' individuals with disabilities to potentially be 
entitled to reasonable accommodation. This change narrows the financial 
impact of the ADA on employers. While many individuals with 
disabilities do not request or need a reasonable accommodation, 
statistical studies have repeatedly shown that when reasonable 
accommodation is required by an individual with a disability, it is far 
less expensive than many employers suspect.


Risks:


The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risk to employers. The 
proposal does not address risks to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/23/09                    74 FR 48431
NPRM Comment Period End         11/23/09
Final Action                    07/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Christopher Kuczynski
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street NE
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4665
TDD Phone: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3046-AA85
BILLING CODE 6570-01-S

[[Page 64342]]




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 2010 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 64343]]




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.
Through a framework of six strategic goals, NASA's 2006 Strategic Plan 
guided the following Agency activities:
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.
Through pursuit of these goals, NASA embraced its mission for space 
exploration and continued scientific discovery and aeronautics 
research. Under a new Administrator, NASA is planning to publish an 
updated Strategic Plan in early 2010. The 2010 NASA Strategic Plan will 
reflect progress since 2006 and priorities of the new Administration.
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) 2010.
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. NASA does not plan any major NFS 
revisions in FY 2010. In a continuing effort to keep the NFS current 
and to implement NASA initiatives and Federal procurement policy, minor 
revisions to the NFS will be published.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-S

[[Page 64344]]




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 2010, which is 
included in The Regulatory Plan. We are drafting regulations for the 
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), established under the 
OPEN Government Act of 2007. The OGIS Director is responsible for 
reviewing policies and procedures of administrative agencies under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); reviewing compliance with FOIA by 
administrative agencies; and recommending policy changes to Congress 
and the President to improve the administration of FOIA.
_______________________________________________________________________



NARA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




157.  OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-175


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), established under 
the OPEN Government Act of 2007, is responsible for reviewing policies 
and procedures of administrative agencies under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA); reviewing compliance with FOIA by 
administrative agencies; and recommending policy changes to Congress 
and the President to improve the administration of FOIA.


Statement of Need:


The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), established under 
the OPEN Government Act of 2007, may require implementing regulations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Open Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-175) requires the 
establishment of an Office of Government Information Services within 
NARA. OGIS will oversee Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activities 
government-wide.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


OGIS, as an organization responsible for reviewing policies and 
procedures of administrative agencies under the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA); reviewing compliance with FOIA by administrative agencies; 
and recommending policy changes to Congress and the President to 
improve the administration of FOIA, is expected to increase the 
efficiency of the FOIA process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Laura McCarthy
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 837-3023
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AB62
BILLING CODE 7515-01-S

[[Page 64345]]




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 2009 regulatory 
priorities are designed to support these activities.
Adverse Actions
OPM proposes to amend its regulations governing Federal adverse 
actions. The proposed amendments would clarify the adverse action rules 
regarding reductions in pay and indefinite suspension. In addition, OPM 
proposes to remove unnecessary subparts pertaining to statutory 
requirements, make a number of technical corrections, and utilize 
consistent language for similar regulatory requirements. OPM also 
proposes various revisions to make the regulations more readable.
Pay and Leave Flexibilities in Emergency Situations
OPM will continue efforts to improve Federal pay and leave 
flexibilities available in emergency situations. Drawing on experiences 
and lessons learned in past emergency situations, OPM anticipates 
issuing proposed regulations to reorganize and clarify the 
administration of advance payments, evacuation payments, and special 
allowances.
OPM also anticipates issuing final regulations to entitle an employee 
to use sick leave to provide care for a family member when the relevant 
health authorities or a health care provider have determined that the 
family member's presence in the community would jeopardize the health 
of others because of the family member's exposure to a communicable 
disease. We anticipate a proposal to permit agencies to advance a 
maximum of 240 hours (30 days) of sick leave to an employee if the 
employee's presence on the job would jeopardize the health of others 
because of exposure to a communicable disease, and to advance a maximum 
of 104 hours (13 days) of sick leave to an employee to provide care for 
a family member who would jeopardize the health of others by that 
family member's presence in the community because of exposure to a 
communicable disease.
Benefits for Reservists and their Family Members
OPM will continue to enhance benefits and support work-life balance for 
Federal employees whose family members are serving on active duty. OPM 
anticipates issuing final regulations to implement section 585(b) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA) 
(Public Law 110-181, January 28, 2008) that amends the Family and 
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provisions in 5 U.S.C. 6381-6383 (applicable 
to Federal employees) to provide that a Federal employee who is the 
spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered 
servicemember with a serious injury or illness is entitled to a total 
of 26 administrative workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period 
to care for the covered servicemember. The covered servicemember must 
be a current member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the 
National Guard or Reserves, who has a serious injury or illness 
incurred in the line of duty on active duty for which he or she is 
undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in 
outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired 
list. The regulations would also permit an employee to substitute 
annual or sick leave, including advanced annual or sick leave, for any 
part of the 26-week period of unpaid FMLA leave to care for a covered 
servicemember.
OPM will also continue to support Federal civilian employees called to 
active duty to further serve our Nation. OPM anticipates issuing 
proposed regulations to implement statutory changes that provide a new 
benefit to Federal civilian employees who are members of the Reserve or 
National Guard and who are called or ordered to active duty. Section 
751 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8, March 
11, 2009) established a new provision in 5 U.S.C. 5538 that became 
effective on March 15, 2009. Under this new law, eligible Federal 
civilian employees called to active duty may receive a reservist 
differential. The reservist differential is equal to the amount by 
which an employee's projected civilian ``basic pay'' for a covered pay 
period exceeds the employee's actual military ``pay and allowances'' 
allocable to that pay period. While each employing civilian agency is 
responsible for making these payments, OPM, in consultation with the 
Department of Defense, is required to issue regulations to implement 
the new benefit.
Benefits for a Diverse Workforce
OPM will continue to encourage the recruitment and retention of a 
diverse workforce. OPM anticipates issuing final regulations to modify 
definitions related to family member and immediate relative for 
purposes of use of sick leave, funeral leave, voluntary leave transfer, 
voluntary leave bank, and emergency leave transfer. These changes would 
implement section 1 of President Obama's June 17, 2009, Memorandum on 
Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination and ensure that agencies are 
considering the needs of a widely diverse workforce and providing the 
broadest support possible to employees to help them balance their 
increasing work, personal, and family obligations. As part of OPM's 
continued efforts to support the needs of the Federal workforce during 
times of sickness, funerals, and medical or other emergencies, we are 
proposing to make the definitions of family member and immediate 
relative more explicit to include more examples of relationships that 
are covered under the phrase ``[a]ny individual related by blood or 
affinity'' whose close association with the employee is the equivalent 
of a family relationship. These examples include step-parents and step-
children, grandparents, grandchildren, and same-sex and opposite-sex 
domestic partners. By making these definitions more explicit, we would 
ensure more consistent application of policy across the Federal 
Government and set an example of the Federal Government as a model 
employer of a diverse workforce.
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB)
OPM is amending its regulations to provide for continuation of health 
benefits coverage for certain former Senate restaurant employees who 
were transferred to employment with a private contractor. We are also 
proposing to change the annual FEHB Program Open Season to November 1 
through November 30 of each year. We are also adding a new opportunity 
for eligible employees to enroll or change enrollment from self only to 
self and family under the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2009. We are also changing the regulations to 
allow FEHB plans to offer three options, one of which may be a high 
deductible health plan.

[[Page 64346]]

Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP)
OPM is issuing final regulations on changes in the Federal Employees 
Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). We are amending the 
regulations to authorize retroactive enrollment changes when an 
enrollee has lost their spouse through death or divorce or their last 
eligible child marries or reaches age 22.
Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI)
OPM is amending its Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) 
regulations to provide for new election opportunities for certain 
civilian and Defense Department employees deployed in support of a 
contingency operation required by Public Law 110-417; provide for the 
continuation of coverage opportunities for Federal employees called to 
active duty required by Public Law 110-181; and update the regulations 
with other changes, clarifications, and corrections.
Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)
OPM is issuing a proposed regulation to amend regulations pertaining to 
the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). This proposed 
regulation expands coverage eligibility to domestic partners of 
eligible Federal employees and annuitants.
Training; Supervisory, Management, 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 and strategic goals. 
Another change requires agencies to work with OPM to establish 
comprehensive management succession programs designed to develop future 
mangers 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. Our proposed revision to the OPM regulations at Parts 410 
and 412 of 5 CFR have been designed to address the changes, and in 
general to increase the emphasis on employee and executive development 
in the Federal Government. The proposed regulations were published for 
public comments. OPM expects publication of final regulations by the 
end of 2009.
Pay System for Senior Professionals (SL/ST)
OPM proposes to amend rules for setting and adjusting pay of senior-
level (SL) and scientific and professional (ST) employees. The Senior 
Professional Performance Act of 2008 changed pay for these employees by 
eliminating their previous entitlement to locality pay and providing 
instead for rates of basic pay up to the rate payable for level III of 
the Executive Schedule (EX-III), or, if the employee is under a 
certified performance appraisal system, the rate payable for level II 
of the Executive Schedule (EX-II). Consistent with this statutory 
emphasis on performance-based pay, these regulations will provide more 
flexible rules for agencies to set and adjust pay for SL and ST 
employees based primarily upon individual performance, contribution to 
the agency's performance, or both, as determined under a rigorous 
performance appraisal system.
Job Announcement and Applicant Notification
OPM is proposing to amend the regulations concerning the content of a 
job announcement. We are also proposing to add regulations to require 
Federal agencies to notify applicants at four points in the hiring 
process; to require agencies to use alternative valid assessment tools, 
excluding lengthy written essays or narratives of knowledge, skills, 
and abilities/competencies, and to require agencies to accept cover 
letters and r[eacute]sum[eacute]s as the initial application for a 
Federal job. With these changes, OPM plans to streamline the Federal 
hiring process and improve an applicant's experience.
BILLING CODE 6325-44-S

[[Page 64347]]




PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the pensions 
of about 44 million people in about 28,500 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.
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).
 Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
            covers about 1500 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.
At the end of fiscal year 2009, PBGC had a $22 billion deficit in its 
insurance programs.
Regulatory Objectives and Priorities
As described below, PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities 
are to complete implementation of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 
(PPA 2006) by issuing simple, understandable, and timely regulations 
that do not impose undue burdens that could impede maintenance or 
establishment of defined benefit plans. PBGC is also working on several 
regulatory projects not related to PPA 2006. 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, provide relief for 
small businesses, and assist plans to comply with applicable 
requirements.
Transparency
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 
requires disclosure of certain information to participants regarding 
the termination of their underfunded plan. PBGC published a final 
regulation on this disclosure of termination information in November 
2008.
PPA 2006 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 published 
a final regulation implementing those changes in March 2009.
Electronic filing
PBGC has simplified filing by increasing use of electronic filing 
methods. Electronic filing of premium information has been 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. Most of the premium changes under PPA 2006 have now been 
incorporated into software so that it will be easy to comply with the 
premium changes under the new law.
Employers with large amounts of underfunding in their plans must file 
actuarial and financial information under section 4010 of ERISA 
electronically. Electronic filing reduces the filing burden, improves 
accuracy, and better enables PBGC to monitor and manage risks posed by 
these plans. PBGC incorporated 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.
Small businesses
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 
regulation PBGC published under PPA 2006 implemented the cap on the 
variable-rate premium for plans of small employers. In early 2010, the 
Corporation expects to issue a proposed regulation implementing the 
expanded missing participants program under PPA 2006, which will also 
benefit small businesses.
Other PPA 2006 changes
Under PPA 2006, if a plan terminates while its sponsor is in 
bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy was initiated on or after September 16, 
2006, the bankruptcy filing date is treated as the plan termination 
date for purposes of determining the amount of benefits PBGC guarantees 
and the amount of assets allocated to participants who retired or have 
been retirement-eligible for three years. In 2008, PBGC published a 
proposed regulation to implement this statutory change; PBGC expects to 
finalize the regulation in late 2009.
PPA 2006 changes the rules for determining benefits upon the 
termination of a statutory hybrid plan, such as a cash balance plan. 
PBGC plans to publish a proposed regulation in late 2009 to implement 
those rules in both PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that close out in 
the private sector.
Under PPA 2006, the phase-in period for the guarantee of a benefit 
payable solely by reason of an ``unpredictable contingent event,'' such 
as a plant shutdown, starts no earlier than the date of the shutdown or 
other unpredictable contingent event. PBGC plans to publish a proposed 
regulation implementing this statutory change in late 2009.

[[Page 64348]]

PPA 2006 provides for changes in the allocation of unfunded vested 
benefits to withdrawing employers from a multiemployer pension plan and 
requires adjustments in determining an employer's withdrawal liability 
when a multiemployer plan is in critical status. In December 2008, PBGC 
published a final regulation to implement these provisions and to 
provide other improvements to the withdrawal liability rules.
Compliance assistance
PBGC has initiated a regulatory project to assist plans to comply with 
requirements applicable to certain substantial cessations of 
operations. ERISA section 4062(e) provides for reporting of and 
liability for certain substantial cessations of operations by employers 
that maintain single-employer plans. In early 2010, PBGC expects to 
publish a proposed regulation that would provide guidance as to what 
constitutes a section 4062(e) event, on the reporting of such an event 
to PBGC, and on the determination and satisfaction of liability arising 
from such an event.
Reemployed service members' pension benefits
In 2009, PBGC published a proposed regulation that would implement 
provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 
Act of 1994 (USERRA). USERRA provides that an individual who leaves a 
job to serve in the uniformed services is generally entitled to 
reemployment by the previous employer and, upon reemployment, to 
receive credit for benefits, including employee pension plan benefits, 
that would have accrued but for the employee's absence due to the 
military service. The proposed regulation would provide that so long as 
a service member is reemployed within the time limits set by USERRA, 
even if the reemployment occurs after the plan's termination date, PBGC 
would treat the participant as having satisfied the reemployment 
condition as of the termination date. This would ensure that the 
pension benefits of reemployed service members, like those of other 
employees, would generally be guaranteed for periods up to the plan's 
termination date.
PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-01-S

[[Page 64349]]




U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
The U.S. 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 disaster. 
In the coming year, SBA's regulatory priorities will focus on 
increasing procurement opportunities for Women-Owned Small Business 
Concerns (WOSBs). This proposed rule would further SBA's overall goal 
to increase contracting and business opportunities for small businesses 
by giving contracting officers the ability to restrict competition to 
WOSBs in industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are 
underrepresented and substantially underrepresented and where certain 
threshold determinations are made by an agency.
In addition, SBA has prioritized changes to the regulations governing 
the Section 8(a) Business Development (8(a) BD) and Small Disadvantaged 
Business (SDB) programs, and to SBA's size determinations. The 
amendments in this proposed rule will prevent large businesses as well 
as other non-8(a) firms from being able to reap the benefits of sole 
source contracts intended for tribally-owned or Alaska Native 
Corporation-owned 8(a) Participants. The proposed rule will also 
benefit eligible business by clarifying SBA's requirements, removing 
confusion, and eliminating or easing restrictions that are unnecessary.
Finally, SBA will focus its regulatory priorities on reviewing and 
updating its size standards for small businesses to ensure that SBA's 
size standards are consistently evaluated using the latest available 
data. In particular, SBA intends to publish three proposed rules to 
revise the size standards for business in certain industries classified 
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): Retail 
Trade Industry Sector; Accommodations and Food Services Industry 
Sector; and Other Services Industry Sector, which include, for example, 
repair and maintenance services, personal and laundry services, and 
religious, grant making, civic, and professional services.
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




158. 8(A) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a) and (d)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 124


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to make a number of changes to the regulations 
governing the 8(a) Business Development (8(a) BD) Program and several 
changes to SBA's size regulations. Some of the changes involve 
technical issues, such as changing the term ``SIC code'' to ``NAICS 
code'' to reflect the national conversion to the North American 
Industry Classification System. SBA has learned through experience that 
certain of its rules governing the 8(a) BD program are too restrictive 
and serve to unfairly preclude firms from being admitted to the 
program. In other cases, SBA has determined that a rule is too 
expansive or indefinite and has sought to restrict or clarify that 
rule. Changes are also being proposed to correct past public or agency 
misinterpretation. Also, new situations have arisen that were not 
anticipated when the current rules were drafted and the proposed rule 
seeks to cover those situations. Finally, one of the changes, involving 
Native Hawaiian Organizations, implements recently enacted legislation.


Statement of Need:


Sections 8(a) and 7(j) of the Small Business Act authorize the SBA to 
administer the 8(a) BD program and assist eligible small disadvantaged 
business concerns compete in the American economy through business 
development. The 8(a) BD program provides procurement, financial, 
management and technical assistance to foster the business growth and 
development of 8(a) BD program participants. The proposed regulatory 
action is necessary to implement changes to the regulations governing 
the 8(a) BD program, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) programs, 
and to the SBA size regulations. The changes are proposed as a result 
of the continuing need to ensure that SBA is effectively delivering the 
8(a) BD program in accordance with the Small Business Act. In addition, 
the regulatory action is needed to enable SBA to institute the proper 
internal controls that will ensure effective monitoring and oversight 
of the 8(a) BD Program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule proposes to make some changes that involve technical issues, 
correct some rules governing the 8(a) BD program that are too 
restrictive, and others that require clarification. The rule change 
will address new situations have arisen that were not anticipated when 
the current rules were drafted. Finally, there is one change that 
implements a statutory change.


Alternatives:


SBA will analyze and consider the impact of any comments received from 
the public as a result of the proposed

[[Page 64350]]

regulations being published in the Federal Register. Where relevant and 
appropriate, the regulations will be revised to incorporate these 
comments.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is difficult to estimate the costs and benefits to the various 
classes of firms affected by this rule as it is impossible to foresee 
which future contracts above the competitive thresholds would be 
awarded based on the various options available to contracting officers. 
SBA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule exceed its costs 
and exceed the benefits of continuing the status quo. SBA believes that 
increased clarity and easing of restrictions in the overall proposed 
changes set forth in this rule are beneficial to 8(a) applicants and 
Participants.


Risks:


Because the 8(a) Program is a business development program--not a 
contracting program--it is intended to foster the 8(a) firm's growth 
(through various forms of technical, management, procurement and 
financial assistance) and viability during the Participant's 9-year 
term.


The regulatory action is intended to mitigate any risks associated with 
program procedures and internal controls by ensuring clear and concise 
regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/28/09                    74 FR 55694
NPRM Comment Period End         12/28/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Joe Loddo
Associate Administrator, Office of Business Development
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7550
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3245-AF53
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA



159. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: RETAIL TRADE INDUSTRIES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 632(a)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


An SBA project is the review and update of all SBA size standards over 
a 2-year period. This proposed rule is one of a series of proposals 
evaluating the size standards for industries within a specific North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sector. This 
action proposes revisions to certain industries in the NAICS Retail 
Trade Industry Sector. The Retail Trade Industry Sector includes 
companies engaged in retailing merchandise and rendering services 
incidental to the sale of merchandise. These proposed revisions ensure 
that SBA's size standards are consistently evaluated using the latest 
available data.


Statement of Need:


SBA's small business size standards are used to establish eligibility 
for financial assistance and Federal contracting opportunities for 
small businesses. SBA is conducting a comprehensive review of all small 
business size standards to ensure that they accurately reflect industry 
structure, Federal government procurement practices and current 
economic conditions so that Federal programs are able to effectively 
assist small businesses. This rule reviews SBA size standards for 
industries within NAICS Sector 44-45, Retail Trade, and revises size 
standards for certain industries in the sector. The last such review of 
size standards for retail trade industries was in the early 1980s.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's 
Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business 
definitions, commonly referred to as size standards. The Act requires 
that such definitions vary to reflect industry differences.


Alternatives:


By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for 
establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance 
programs. Other than varying size standards by industry, no practical 
alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule has proposed to increase size standards for 48 industries 
within Sector 44-45, enabling about 8,800 additional firms to obtain 
small business status and become eligible for Federal small business 
assistance. This could potentially increase the small business share of 
Federal contracting dollars by up to between $80 million and $100 
million annually. The proposed action is not expected to result in 
significant costs to both Federal government and small entities as 
necessary administrative and operational mechanisms are already in 
place.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/21/09                    74 FR 53924
NPRM Comment Period End         12/21/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Khem Sharma
Division Chief, Division of Size Standards, Office of Government 
Contracting/Business Development
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7189
Fax: 202 205-6390
RIN: 3245-AF69

[[Page 64351]]

_______________________________________________________________________



SBA



160. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: OTHER SERVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 632(a)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


An SBA project is the review of all SBA size standards over a 2-year 
period. This proposed rule is one of a series of proposals evaluating 
the size standards for industries within a specific North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sector. This action 
proposes revisions to certain industries in the NAICS Other Services 
Industry Sector. Other Services include, for example, repair and 
maintenance services, personal and laundry services, and religious, 
grant making, civic, and professional services. These proposed 
revisions ensure that SBA's size standards are consistently evaluated 
using the latest available data.


Statement of Need:


SBA's small business size standards are used to establish eligibility 
for financial assistance and Federal contracting opportunities for 
small businesses. SBA is conducting a comprehensive review of all small 
business size standards to ensure that they accurately reflect industry 
structure, Federal government procurement practices and current 
economic conditions so that Federal programs are able to effectively 
assist small businesses. This rule reviews SBA size standards for 
industries within NAICS Sector 81, Other Services, and revises size 
standards for certain industries in the sector. The last such review of 
size standards for other services industries was in the early 1980s.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's 
Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business 
definitions, commonly referred to as size standards. The Act requires 
that such definitions vary to reflect industry differences.


Alternatives:


By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for 
establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance 
programs. Other than varying size standards by industry, no practical 
alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule has proposed to increase size standards for 18 industries 
within Sector 81, enabling about 1,400 additional firms to obtain small 
business status and become eligible for Federal small business 
assistance. This could potentially increase the small business share of 
Federal contracting dollars by up to between $25 million and $30 
million annually. The proposed action is not expected to result in 
significant costs to both Federal government and small entities as 
necessary administrative and operational mechanisms are already in 
place.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/21/09                    74 FR 53941
NPRM Comment Period End         12/21/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Khem Sharma
Division Chief, Division of Size Standards, Office of Government 
Contracting/Business Development
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7189
Fax: 202 205-6390
RIN: 3245-AF70
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA



161. SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS: ACCOMMODATIONS AND FOOD SERVICE 
INDUSTRIES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 632(a)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


An SBA project is a review of all SBA size standards over a 2-year 
period. This proposed rule is one of a series of proposals evaluating 
the size standards for industries within a specific North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Sector. This action 
proposes revisions to certain industries in the NAICS Accommodations 
and Food Services Industry Sector. The Accommodations and Food Services 
Industry Sector includes companies that provide lodging and/or prepare 
meals, snacks, and beverages for immediate consumption. These proposed 
revisions ensure that SBA's size standards are consistently evaluated 
using the latest available data.


Statement of Need:


SBA's small business size standards are used to establish eligibility 
for financial assistance and Federal contracting opportunities for 
small businesses. SBA is conducting a comprehensive review of all small 
business size standards to ensure that they accurately reflect industry 
structure, Federal government procurement practices and current 
economic conditions so that Federal programs are able to effectively 
assist small businesses. This rule reviews SBA size standards for 
industries within NAICS Sector 72, Accommodation and Food Service, and 
revises size standards for certain industries in the sector. The last 
such review of size standards for industries in the accommodation and 
food service sector was in the early 1980s.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's 
Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business 
definitions, commonly referred to as size standards. The Act requires 
that such definitions vary to reflect industry differences.

[[Page 64352]]

Alternatives:


By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for 
establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance 
programs. Other than varying size standards by industry, no practical 
alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule has proposed to increase size standards for five industries 
within Sector 72, enabling about 2,050 additional firms to obtain small 
business status and become eligible for Federal small business 
assistance. This could potentially increase the small business share of 
Federal contracting dollars by up to between $75 million annually. The 
proposed action is not expected to result in significant costs to both 
Federal government and small entities as necessary administrative and 
operational mechanisms are already in place.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/21/09                    74 FR 53913
NPRM Comment Period End         12/21/09
Final Action                    04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Khem Sharma
Division Chief, Division of Size Standards, Office of Government 
Contracting/Business Development
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7189
Fax: 202 205-6390
RIN: 3245-AF71
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA



162. WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS FEDERAL CONTRACT PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 637(m)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 121; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 127; 13 CFR 134


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is prohibited from using 
funding in Fiscal Year 2009 to implement the program relating to Women-
Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract Assistance Procedures 
published on October 1, 2008, by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, 
Div. D, title V, section 522 (Mar. 11, 2009). In the future, SBA plans 
to withdraw this proposed rule and promulgate a new rule in order to 
establish and implement an effective WOSB procurement program. SBA is 
committed to moving forward to implement a successful WOSB procurement 
program. This rule will establish regulations to implement the Women-
Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract Assistance Program, 
authorized under section 8(m) of the Small Business Act. Section 8(m) 
was enacted as part of Public Law 106-554 to provide a targeted 
procurement mechanism to assist Federal agencies in achieving the 
statutory goal of 5 percent for contracting with WOSBs. In accordance 
with section 8(m), the new regulations would authorize contracting 
officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs for certain Federal 
contracts in industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are 
underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in Federal 
procurement. Also consistent with section 8(m), the authority to 
restrict competition would be limited to contracts not exceeding $3 
million, or $5 million in the case of manufacturing contracts. In 
implementing section 8(m) the proposed regulations would further 
provide: the eligible industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented or 
substantially underrepresented; the specific eligibility requirements 
for WOSBs to qualify for program participation; the procedures for 
concerns to certify their eligibility; the process for SBA to verify 
the continuing WOSB eligibility; the contractual and business 
development assistance available under the program; the relevant 
protest and appeal procedures; and the applicable penalties.


Statement of Need:


``Although the growth rate in the number of women-owned small 
businesses (WOSBs) was almost twice that of all firms between 1997 and 
2002, WOSBs have not experienced a proportional increase in their share 
of Federal contracting dollars.'' LaLa Wu and Kate Collier, The 
National Plan of Action: Then and Now, Bella Abzug Leadership 
Institute, November 2007 (hereinafter ``The National Plan of Action''). 
``Between 1997 and 2002, the numbers of women-owned firms overall 
increased by 19.8 percent and of women-owned employer firms, by 8.3 
percent.'' SBA Office of Advocacy. ``Women in Business: 2006. A 
Demographic Review of Women's Business Ownership,'' 2007. Most tend be 
small; only 1.8 percent of WOSBs have receipts over $1 million and less 
than 0.1 percent had more than 500 employees. See The Utilization of 
Women-Owned Small Business in Federal Contract, Kauffman-RAND 
Institute, 2007. Firms owned by women increased employment by 70,000 
and those by men lost 1 million employees. See id. In addition, in 
2002, women-owned firms accounted for 28.2 percent of all non-farm 
firms in the United States. See id. Despite this growth, the share of 
WOSB prime contract awards was 3.39 percent in FY 2008.


Several congressional and executive efforts over the years to increase 
Federal contracting with WOSBs have not enhanced the WOSB share of 
Federal contracting dollars as much as anticipated. For example, in 
1979, when Executive Order 12138 ``charged Federal agencies with 
responsibility for providing procurement assistance to women-owned 
businesses, WOSBs received only 0.2 percent of all Federal 
procurements.'' The National Plan of Action. In 9 years, the percentage 
of WOSB Federal procurements had grown to only one percent. See id. 
Similarly, in 1988, the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 
100--588 (Oct. 25, 1988), ``was enacted to assist women in starting, 
managing and growing small businesses.'' Id. ``While this program has 
assisted thousands of women in obtaining business financing and 
information, it has had less success in the Federal procurement 
arena.'' Id.

[[Page 64353]]

Subsequently, in 1994, section 7106 of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act (FASA), Public Law 103--355, ``amended the Small 
Business Act by establishing a target that was aimed at increasing 
opportunities for women to compete for Federal contracts.'' Id. ``FASA, 
among other things, established a Governmentwide goal for participation 
by WOSBs in procurement contracts of not less than 5 percent of the 
total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each 
fiscal year.'' Id.


Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data indicates that since fiscal 
year (FY) 1996, Federal agencies have not met the separate 5 percent 
Governmentwide WOSB goal for prime contracts and subcontracts. However, 
the share of Federal prime contracting dollars to WOSBs has increased 
over the years. For example, in FY 2000, WOSBs received 2.3 percent of 
the approximately $200 billion in Federal prime contract awards. The 
share of WOSB prime contract award dollars increased to 2.49 percent in 
FY 2001, and again to 2.90, 2.98, and 3.03 percent in FYs 2002, 2003 
and 2004, respectively. In FY 2005, WOSB prime contract award dollars 
increased to 3.18 percent, in FY 2006, increased again to 3.41 percent 
of prime contract award dollars, in FY 2007 it remained at 3.41 percent 
and in FY 2008 it dropped slightly to 3.39 percent. Although this 
increase shows a growing amount of contract of dollars going to WOSBs, 
SBA anticipates the WOSB Program will serve to quicken the increase of 
that percentage or perhaps give impetus to the development of new 
WOSBs.


The foregoing historical data demonstrates the need for targeted 
government action to facilitate participation by WOSBs in Federal 
government contracting. Congress enacted section 811 of the Small 
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-554, to provide 
that mechanism.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, amended 
the Small Business Act (Act) by adding a new section 8(m), 15 U.S.C. 
637(m), authorizing contracting officers to restrict competition to 
eligible WOSBs for certain Federal contracts in industries in which SBA 
has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially 
underrepresented in Federal procurement. The new section 8(m) of the 
Act explicitly limits the contracting officer's authority to restrict 
competition to contracts not exceeding $3 million ($5 million for 
manufacturing). It further requires SBA to conduct a study to identify 
the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented and substantially 
underrepresented in Federal procurement and requires the head of any 
department or agency to provide SBA information that SBA deems 
necessary to conduct the study.


Alternatives:


This proposed rule implements statutory provisions for the purpose of 
facilitating participation by WOSBs in Federal Government contracting.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Implementing these statutory provisions may impose additional costs on 
the Federal Government and small businesses. The costs and benefits of 
this proposed rule will be analyzed in the rule's regulatory impact 
analysis and its initial regulatory flexibility analysis.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Dean R. Koppel
Acting Director for Government Contracting, Office of Policy, Planning 
and Liaison
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7322
Fax: 202 481-1540
RIN: 3245-AG06
BILLING CODE 8025-01-S

[[Page 64354]]




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 
program 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 and our procedures for administering these programs. 
Generally, our regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector 
or on State or local governments.
The 14 entries in SSA's Regulatory Plan (the Plan), represent issues of 
major importance to the agency. One of our 14 entries recently 
published in the Federal Register and will appear in the Completed 
Actions section of the Unified Agenda. We describe the individual 
initiatives more fully in the attached Plan.
Improving the Disability Process
Because the continued improvement of the disability program is a vital 
concern to us, we have 12 initiatives in the Plan addressing 
disability-related issues. They include:
 A proposed rule providing that we identify claimants with 
            serious medical conditions as soon as possible, allowing us 
            to grant benefits expeditiously to those claimants who meet 
            SSA disability standards;
 A final rule clarifying that we may set the time and place for 
            a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ);
 A proposed rule reestablishing Uniform National Disability 
            Adjudication provisions in our Boston Region;
 Two proposed rules allowing certain SSA employees to issue 
            fully favorable decisions on disability hearing level 
            requests; and,
 Seven initiatives updating the medical listings used to 
            determine disability--two final rules evaluating hearing 
            loss and malignant neoplastic diseases, and five proposed 
            rules on evaluating respiratory system disorders, mental 
            disorders, hematological disorders, immune (HIV) system 
            disorders and endocrine disorders. The final rule on 
            evaluating Malignant Neoplastic Diseases published on 
            October 6, 2009. The revisions reflect our adjudicative 
            experience, advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and 
            treatment.
Enhanced Public Service
We are proposing to revise our rules about the representation of 
claimants and other parties before the agency. These rules include 
recognizing entities as representatives, expanding the use of 
electronic services, and modifying our rules on representative 
sanctions.
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




163. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISORDERS 
(436P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 
USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 
USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 9.00 and 109.00, Endocrine System, of appendix 1 to Subpart P 
of part 404 of our regulations describe endocrine system disorders that 
are considered severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any 
gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming SSI payments under title XVI. We are 
proposing to revise these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulations are necessary to update the Endocrine System 
listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
methods of evaluating endocrine system disorders. The changes would 
ensure that determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, 
that 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 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 
disorders.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/11/05                    70 FR 46792
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/11/05
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Brian Rudick
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-7102
RIN: 0960-AD78

[[Page 64355]]

_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



164. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RESPIRATORY SYSTEM 
DISORDERS (859P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 3.00 and 103.00, Respiratory System, of appendix 1 to Subpart 
P of part 404 of our regulations describe respiratory system disorders 
that are considered severe enough to prevent an individual from doing 
any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming SSI payments under title XVI. We are 
proposing to revise these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulations are necessary to update the Respiratory 
System listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, 
and methods of evaluating respiratory disorders. The changes would 
ensure that determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, 
that 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 and 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 respiratory diseases and because of our 
adjudicative experience.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimated costs - low.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/05                    70 FR 19358
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/13/05
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Joshua B. Silverman
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 594-2128
RIN: 0960-AF58
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



165. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MENTAL DISORDERS (886P)

Priority:


Other Significant


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 42 USC 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 
421; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 421(m); 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 
423; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 
1382(c); 42 USC 1382(h); 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 
42 USC 1383(d); 42 USC 1383(i); 42 USC 1383(p); 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.941; 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1503; 20 CFR 
404.1520 to 404.1520a; 20 CFR 404.1528; 20 CFR 404.1615; 20 CFR 
416.903; 20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 416.928; 20 CFR 416.1015; 20 CFR 
416.1441


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 12.00 and 112.00, Mental Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart P 
of part 404 of our regulations describe those mental impairments that 
are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful 
activity, or that cause marked and severe functional limitations for a 
child claiming SSI payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise 
the criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulations are necessary to update the listings for 
evaluating mental disorders to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment, and methods of evaluating these disorders. The changes would 
ensure that determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, 
that 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. 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 disorders. 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.

[[Page 64356]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Savings estimates for fiscal years 2010 - 2018: (in millions of 
dollars) OASDI - 315, SSI - 370.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/17/03                    68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/16/03
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AF69
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



166. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEMATOLOGICAL DISORDERS 
(974P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 7.00 and 107.00, Hematological Disorders, of appendix 1 to 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe hematological 
disorders that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from 
performing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe 
functional limitation for a child claiming SSI payments under title 
XVI. We are proposing to revise the criteria in these sections to 
ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and 
consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulations are necessary to update the hematological 
listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
methods of evaluating hematological disorders. The changes ensure that 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that 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 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.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimated savings - low.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AF88
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



167. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMMUNE (HIV) SYSTEM 
DISORDERS (3466P)

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 42 USC 405(d) to 42 
USC 405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 
42 USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 14.00 and 114.00, Immune System, of appendix 1 to subpart P of 
part 404 of our regulations describe immune system disorders that are 
considered severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any 
gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the criteria in these 
sections to ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date 
and consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and 
treatment.


Statement of Need:


This proposed regulation is necessary in order to update the HIV 
evaluation

[[Page 64357]]

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 Cost and Benefits:


Cost/Savings estimate - negligible.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/18/08                    73 FR 14409
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/19/08
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Helen Droddy
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1483
RIN: 0960-AG71
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



168. REESTABLISHING UNIFORM NATIONAL DISABILITY ADJUDICATION PROVISIONS 
(3502P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405; 42 USC 405(a); 42 
USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d)-(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405(s); 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 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 USC 423(i); 42 
USC 423 note; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 432; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 
note; 42 USC 1320b-1; 42 USC 1320b-13; 42 USC 1381; 42 USC 1381a; 42 
USC 1382; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h; 42 USC 1382h note; 42 USC 1383; 
42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 42 USC 1383(p); 42 
USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.970; 20 CFR 404.976; 20 CFR 404.1502; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 
CFR 404.1513; 20 CFR 404.1519k; 20 CFR 404.1519m; 20 CFR 404.1519s; 20 
CFR 404.1520a; 20 CFR 404.1526; 20 CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 404.1529; 20 
CFR 404.1546; 20 CFR 404.1601; 20 CFR 404.1624; 20 CFR 405.1; 20 CFR 
405.5; 20 CFR 405.10; 20 CFR 405.20; 20 CFR 405.240; 20 CFR 405.320; 20 
CFR 405.360; 20 CFR 405.371; 20 CFR 405.372; 20 CFR 405.373; 20 CFR 
405.381; 20 CFR 405.382; 20 CFR 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 405.701; 20 CFR 405.705; 20 CFR 
405.710; 20 CFR 405.715; 20 CFR 405.720; 20 CFR 405.725; 20 CFR 
416.902; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 416.913; 20 CFR 416.919k; 20 CFR 
416.919m; 20 CFR 416.919s; 20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 416.924; 20 CFR 
416.926; 20 CFR 416.926a; 20 CFR 416.927; 20 CFR 416.929; 20 CFR 
416.946; 20 CFR 416.1001; 20 CFR 416.1024; 20 CFR 416.1470; 20 CFR 
416.1476; 20 CFR 422.130; 20 CFR 422.140; 20 CFR 422.201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to eliminate the remaining portions of part 405 of our 
regulations, which we now use for disability claims in our Boston 
region. This proposal reinstates in the Boston region the same rules 
that we use for disability adjudications in the rest of the country. 
These rules apply to all levels of our administrative review process, 
including the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels.


Statement of Need:


To provide more consistent processing of appeals level claims for all 
regions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative - not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Continue existing process.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost estimates for fiscal year 2009 - 2018: (in millions of dollars) 
OASDI - 55, SSI - 7.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dean Landis
Associate Commissioner, Office of Regulations
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0520
RIN: 0960-AG80
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



169. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS BY STATE AGENCY DISABILITY EXAMINERS 
(3510P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 
USC 416(i); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 421 note; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 
42

[[Page 64358]]

USC 421(m); 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 USC 423 note; 42 USC 425; 42 
USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h; 42 USC 1382h 
note; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 
42 USC 1383(p); 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1512; 20 CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 404.1529; 20 CFR 404.1546; 20 
CFR 404.1615; 20 CFR 404.1619; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 416.927; 20 CFR 
416.929; 20 CFR 416.946; 20 CFR 416.1015; 20 CFR 416.1019


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our rules to permit disability examiners in our 
State agencies to make fully favorable determinations without requiring 
the input of a medical or psychological consultant in certain claims 
for disability benefits under title II (Social Security Disability 
Insurance) and title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) of the Social 
Security Act.


Statement of Need:


This proposal would allow us to improve service to a vulnerable section 
of the public by processing very specific disability claims faster.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Nancy Schoenberg
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-9408

Pamela Kultgen
Assistant Regional Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
601 E. 12th Street, Suite 965
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816 936-5078
RIN: 0960-AG87
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



170. TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION FOR FEDERAL DISABILITY EXAMINERS TO 
ADJUDICATE HEARING REQUESTS ON-THE-RECORD (3526P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a) and 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 404.943; 20 CFR 416.1443


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to modify, on a temporary basis, the prehearing procedures 
we follow in claims for Social Security disability benefits and SSI 
payments based on disability or blindness under titles II and XVI of 
the Social Security Act. This proposed rule would authorize Federal 
disability examiners to issue fully favorable decisions without review 
by an attorney advisor or administrative law judge (ALJ) and would 
expedite the processing of cases at the hearing level without 
infringing on the right to a hearing before an ALJ. This temporary 
modification would remain in effect for a period not to exceed 5 years, 
unless we terminate or extend it by publication of a final rule in the 
Federal Register.


Statement of Need:


The increased complexity and quantity of disability claims have reduced 
our ability to timely adjudicate disability appeals. This proposed rule 
would authorize Federal disability examiners to issue fully favorable 
decisions without review by an attorney advisor or ALJ and would 
expedite the processing of cases at the hearing level without 
infringing on the right to a hearing before an ALJ.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Discretionary. Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Robin Sabatino
Division Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Quality Performance
Office of Quality Improvement
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9885

Helen Droddy
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1483
RIN: 0960-AG97

[[Page 64359]]

_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



171.  ATTORNEY ADVISORY PROGRAM PERMANENT RULE (3578P)

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 404.942; 20 CFR 416.1442


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 13, 2009, we published a final rule extending for two more 
years the authorization for attorney advisors to conduct certain 
prehearing procedures and to issue fully favorable decisions. The 
current rule is scheduled to expire on August 10, 2011. We are 
proposing to make this authorization permanent and no longer subject to 
the sunset date.


Statement of Need:


The attorney advisor initiative has helped reduce the high number of 
pending cases at the hearing level by permitting certain attorney 
advisors to issue fully favorable ``on the record'' decisions in 
appropriate cases earlier in the hearing process without the need for a 
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Since this initiative's 
inception in November 2007, attorney advisors have issued more than 
54,000 fully favorable decisions. The most recent Office of Quality 
Performance post effectuation review found a 96% accuracy rating for 
these decisions.


We have reduced the number of cases awaiting a hearing for the last 
seven months. The attorney advisor initiative has contributed to this 
reduction by providing earlier decisions where the evidence supports 
making a fully favorable decision. The attorney advisor initiative is 
an important part of our effort to reduce the hearings backlog and 
prevent its recurrence.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


The alternative to making the rule permanent is to let it continue to 
be renewed every two years before the sunset provision expires. We need 
this additional tool to continue to reduce our hearings backlog, which 
will be compounded by the recent economic downturn in the economy.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Marilyn Hull
Social Security Administration
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3260
Phone: 703 605-8500

Brian Rudick
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-7102
RIN: 0960-AH05
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




172. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEARING LOSS (2862F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


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 describe hearing loss that is 
considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful 
activity, or that causes marked and severe functional limitations for a 
child claiming Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title 
XVI. 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


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. The changes ensure that determinations 
of disability have a sound medical basis, that 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 continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe 
that these revisions are preferable because of the medical advances 
that have been made in treating and evaluating these types of 
impairments. The current 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 Cost and Benefits:


Cost estimates for fiscal years 2008 - 2018: (in millions of dollars) 
OASDI - 105, SSI - 10.


Risks:


None.

[[Page 64360]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/05                    70 FR 19353
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/13/05
NPRM                            08/13/08                    73 FR 47103
NPRM Comment Period End         10/14/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG20
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



173. REVISIONS TO RULES ON REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES (3396F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 406(a)(1); 42 USC 810(a); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 
USC 1010; 42 USC 1383(d)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.612; 20 CFR 404.901; 20 CFR 404.903; 20 CFR 404.909; 20 CFR 
404.910; 20 CFR 404.933; 20 CFR 404.934; 20 CFR 404.1700 to 404.1799; 
20 CFR 408.1101; 20 CFR 416.315; 20 CFR 416.1401; 20 CFR 416.1403; 20 
CFR 416.1409; 20 CFR 416.1410; 20 CFR 416.1433; 20 CFR 416.1434; 20 CFR 
416.1500 to 416.1599; 20 CFR 422.203; 20 CFR 422.515


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We will revise our rules on representation of parties in parts 404, 
408, 416, and 422 to reflect changes in the way claimants obtain 
representation and in representatives' business practices. These new 
rules will also improve our efficiency by increasing the use of 
electronic services. These rules will:


-- Recognize entities as representatives;


-- Mandate the use of Form SSA-1696 during the appointment process;


-- Mandate the use of Form SSA-1696 to waive a fee or to waive direct 
payment of a fee;


-- Require certain representatives to use our electronic services as 
they become available, including Internet Appeals;


-- Require certain representatives to keep paper copies of certain 
documents that we may require;


-- Require representatives and certain individuals to register with us 
and to provide attestations;


-- Add new affirmative duties and prohibited actions for 
representatives;


-- Add new definitions or revise existing definitions for: 
``disqualify,'' ``electronic media,'' ``Federal agency,'' ``Federal 
program,'' ``fee petition,'' ``initial disability claim,'' ``person,'' 
and ``representative''; and


-- Change references in the representative sanctions rules to reflect a 
recent delegation of authority and recent agency reorganization.


Statement of Need:


These revisions will reflect changes in representatives' business 
practices and improve our efficiency by enhancing use of the Internet.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 206 of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA) and section 302 and 4303 of 
the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) Public Law 108-203.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Negligible.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/08/08                    73 FR 51963
NPRM Comment Period End         11/07/08
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Joann Anderson
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-6716

Joshua B. Silverman
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 594-2128
RIN: 0960-AG56
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



174. SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE 
LAW JUDGE (3481F)

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) 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 404.932; 20 CFR 404.936; 20 CFR 404.938; 20 CFR 404.950; 20 CFR 
416.1432; 20 CFR 416.1436; 20 CFR 416.1438; 20 CFR 416.1450(b)


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 64361]]

Abstract:


We will amend our rules to clarify that the agency is responsible for 
setting the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law 
judge. This change will ensure greater flexibility in scheduling both 
in-person and video-teleconference hearings, increase efficiency in the 
hearing process, and reduce the number of pending hearings. The number 
of cases awaiting a hearing has reached historic proportions and 
greater efficiency is critical to addressing this problem.


Statement of Need:


We currently face 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. This rulemaking will promote 
greater efficiency at the hearing level.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Program benefit costs are estimated to increase for fiscal years 2008 - 
2018 by $1.2 billion for OASDI and SSI.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/10/08                    73 FR 66564
NPRM Comment Period End         01/09/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Brent Hillman
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3260
Phone: 703 605-8280

Pamela Kultgen
Assistant Regional Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
601 E. 12th Street, Suite 965
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816 936-5078
RIN: 0960-AG61
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA



175.  AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS REGARDING MAJOR LIFE-CHANGING 
EVENTS AFFECTING INCOME-RELATED MONTHLY ADJUSTMENTS TO MEDICARE PART B 
PREMIUMS (3574F)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1395r(i)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 418.1205; 20 CFR 418.1210; 20 CFR 418.1230; 20 CFR 418.1255; 20 
CFR 418.1265


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are modifying our regulations in order to clarify and expand events 
considered life-changing events for the purposes of Medicare Part B 
income-related monthly adjustments as well as the types of evidence 
required to support claims of such events.


Statement of Need:


The past year has seen the closure or reorganization of several major 
employers in the United States. As a result, some companies are 
providing settlement payments to current and retired employees in lieu 
of periodic pension payments and/or extended health insurance coverage. 
These settlement payments unexpectedly increase a beneficiary's income 
for a tax-reporting year, resulting in an income-related monthly 
adjustment amount (IRMAA) above the beneficiary's ability to pay. This 
change will allow a beneficiary to claim a decrease in IRMAA by using a 
more representative tax year's modified adjusted gross income.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Discretionary. Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                    01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Helen Droddy
Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1483
RIN: 0960-AH06
BILLING CODE 4191-02-S

[[Page 64362]]




FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION (FMC)



Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Federal Maritime Commission's 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 FMC administers in a manner consistent with this vision in a way 
that minimizes regulatory costs and fosters economic efficiencies.
The Commission has implemented its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2010 
through 2015. As a result of the strategic planning process, the 
Commission's mission statement, strategic goals and performance 
measures have been refined to better focus the FMC's efforts in 
achieving its mission and promote efficiency in the Commission's 
business processes. In working toward these objectives, the Commission 
will initiate rulemakings to address changing industry conditions or to 
implement technological advancements to minimize regulatory costs.
The Commission is in the process of reviewing its regulations to ensure 
alignment with emerging industry trends and business practices, 
particularly as they relate to ocean transportation intermediaries, 
marine terminal operators and vessel-operating common carriers. For 
administrative purposes, the FMC amended its regulations to reflect the 
codification of shipping laws in Title 46 of the United States Code and 
revised Commission rules to adjust civil monetary penalties for 
inflation. The FMC also commenced a rulemaking to assess the continued 
need for a marine terminal agreement exemption (46 CFR 535.308) in 
light of recent industry changes and existing exemptions for marine 
terminal services agreements and marine terminal facilities agreements 
under 46 CFR 535.309 and 535.310.
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 priority of the Agency's current regulatory plan will be 
to continue to assess major existing regulations for ongoing need, 
burden on the regulated industry, and clarity. The Commission receives 
requests from segments of the shipping industry with regard to their 
tariff obligations under the Commission's regulations. The Commission 
invites comments on such requests and evaluates those comments. If the 
Commission determines to act favorably on the requests, it is possible 
that there could be specific rulemaking proposals presented for the 
Commission's consideration.
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 64363]]




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 competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, brings the best 
choice of products and services at the lowest prices for consumers.
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 sixteen 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, information privacy 
and security, the evolving nature of technology, consumer credit and 
finance, and health care issues continue to be at the forefront of the 
Commission's consumer protection and competition programs. By subject 
area, we discuss the major workshops and reports\1\ the FTC has issued 
since the 2008 Regulatory Plan was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FTC also prepares a number of annual and periodic reports on 
the statutes it administers. These are not discussed in this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Protecting Personal Information. The Commission convened a number 
of workshops in interrelated areas associated with protecting personal 
information, consumer privacy, and identity theft. They include:
 On November 13, 2008, the FTC and the Southern Methodist 
            University Dedman School of Law co-hosted a workshop on how 
            businesses can secure personal information and protect the 
            privacy of consumers and employees. The workshop was 
            presented in partnership with the International Association 
            of Privacy Professionals which provides guidance to 
            businesses on data security, privacy, and responses to data 
            breaches.
 On March 16-17, 2009, the FTC, along with the Asia-Pacific 
            Economic Cooperation forum and the Organization for 
            Economic Cooperation and Development, co-hosted an 
            international conference on how companies can manage 
            personal data security issues in a global information 
            environment where data can be stored and accessed from 
            multiple jurisdictions.
 On April 29, 2009, the FTC held a workshop to help businesses 
            implement data security practices to deter identity thieves 
            and recognize telltale signs - or red flags - that thieves 
            are trying to use personal information they have obtained.
 Beginning December 7, 2009, the Commission will hold three 
            roundtables to explore the privacy challenges posed by 21st 
            century technology and business practices that collect and 
            use company data. The goal of the roundtables is to 
            determine how best to protect consumers while supporting 
            beneficial uses of the information and technological 
            innovation.
As an outgrowth of an April 2007 federal government strategic plan 
which contained 31 recommendations to address identity theft, the 
President's Identity Task Force (co-chaired by the Attorney General and 
the FTC's Chairman) released an October 2008 report on the progress 
made in implementing the recommendations.\2\ The report discusses the 
FTC's workshops, training seminars, and extensive outreach with public, 
private, and non-government organizations on preventing identity theft. 
Related to this, and following a December 2007 workshop on the use of 
Social Security numbers, the Commission issued a December 2008 report 
``Security in Numbers: Social Security and Identity Theft: A Federal 
Trade Commission Report Providing Recommendations on Social Security 
Number Use in the Private Sector.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``The President's Identity Theft Task Force Report'' at http://
www.ftc.gov/os/2008/10/081021taskforcereport.pdf.
\3\ The complete report is at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/12/
P075414ssnreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of a November 2007 town hall on issues related to online 
behavioral advertising - the practice of tracking an individual's 
online activities in order to deliver advertising tailored to his or 
her interests - and how best to protect consumer privacy, the FTC staff 
put out for comment a set of four principles in December 2007. The 
principles were transparency and consumer control, reasonable security 
for consumer collected data, express consumer consent to material 
changes in privacy policy, express consumer consent to use of sensitive 
data. After considering the comments, the Commission issued a report in 
February 2009, ``Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral 
Advertising,'' which revised and retained the principles governing 
self-regulation by advertisers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/
P085400behavadreport.pdf.

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

[[Page 64364]]

(b) Mobile Marketplace. In May 2008, the Commission held a town hall 
meeting to assess the evolving mobile commerce marketplace and its 
implications for consumer protection policies. As a result of that 
meeting and based on further review, the FTC staff issued an April 2009 
report ``Beyond Voice: Mapping the Mobile Marketplace.''\5\ The report 
found that cost disclosures about mobile services continue to generate 
consumer complaints and that the increased use of smartphones to access 
the mobile Web presented unique privacy concerns, especially regarding 
children. The report also highlighted the need to monitor the impact of 
unwanted mobile text messages, malware, and spyware and the substantial 
cost to carriers (and potentially consumers) of blocking them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This is located at www.ftc.gov/reports/mobilemarketplace/
mobilemktgfinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Debt Collection. In October 2007, the Commission held a two-day 
workshop to explore how collection industry changes have affected 
consumers and businesses. In February 2009, in addition to its annual 
report on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the FTC 
issued ``Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change.''\6\ The 
report found that major problems in the flow of information in the 
collection chain and recommended that consumers be provided better 
information on debts and their rights. The report also recommended that 
debt collection laws should be modernized to reflect changes in 
technology and that Congress authorize the FTC to issue rules under the 
FDCPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This is at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/
dcwr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report further notes that the FTC lacked sufficient information on 
debt collection proceedings. On August 5-6, September 29-30, and 
December 4, 2009, the Commission has held or will hold roundtables 
examining consumer protection issues involving debt collections, both 
in litigation and arbitration proceedings.
(d) Health Care. On November 21, 2008, the Commission held roundtables 
on two distinct health care issues involving competition and consumer 
protection issues: competition between health care providers based on 
quality information, and competition which may be provided by an 
abbreviated regulatory approval for follow-on biologics (FOBs).
In June 2009, the Commission issued two reports on health care issues. 
The first, ``Follow-On Biologic Drug Competition,''\7\ was a result of 
the November workshop. After discussing the differences between FOB 
drugs and branded-generic drugs and noting that competition by FOBs is 
unlikely to be similar to brand-generic competition (substantial FOB 
costs, limited competition, lack of automatic substitution, FOB 
difficulty gaining market share), the report concludes that patent 
protection and market-based pricing will promote competition by FOBs 
and recommends legislation to put in place an abbreviated FDA approval 
process for FOBs. The second report, ``Authorized Generics: An Interim 
Report,''\8\ analyzes price reductions when authorized generic (AG) 
drugs compete with first-to-file generics during 180-day exclusivity 
and the impact of brand-generic patent litigation settlements that 
contain provisions on launching an AG drug. The FTC's report was 
prepared in response to requests from Congress and is relevant to 
health care reform initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The link is http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/06/
P083901biologicsreport.pdf.
\8\ The link is www.ftc.gov/os/2009/06/
P062105authorizedgenericsreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Competition. On February 17-19 and May 20-21, 2009, the Commission 
hosted public workshops on resale price maintenance under the Sherman 
Act and the FTC Act, focusing on how best to distinguish resale price 
maintenance that benefits consumers from that which does not. The 
workshops discussed theories of economic benefits and harms, featured 
panel presentations, and allowed for audience questions. On October 17, 
2008, the FTC held a workshop on the scope of ``unfair methods of 
competition'' in section 5 of the FTC Act. The Commission considered 
the history of the provision, FTC and court interpretations, 
contemporary business conduct, and issues concerning standard-setting 
organizations.
In addition, beginning December 3, 2009, and ending January 26, 2010, 
the Commission and the Department of Justice will hold a series of five 
joint public workshops to explore updating the guidelines used to 
evaluate the potential competitive effects of mergers and acquisitions. 
The purpose of the review is to consider guideline revisions to more 
accurately reflect agency practice and result in a more efficient 
review process. The agencies have requested comments on twenty 
questions related to competitive effects; market definition, share, and 
concentration; and the price and non-price effects of mergers.
(f) Intellectual Property. The Commission held a series of five 
hearings on the ``Evolving Intellectual Property (IP) Marketplace.'' 
The hearings generally focused on examining changes in intellectual 
property law, patent-related business models, and new information 
regarding the operation of the IP marketplace since the issuance of the 
FTC's October 2003 report, ``To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance 
of Competition and Patent Law and Policy.''
 Overview Hearing. On December 5, 2008, three panels provided 
            an overview of developing business models, recent and 
            proposed changes in IP remedies law, and changes in legal 
            doctrines affecting the value and licensing of patents.
 Remedies. On February 11-12, 2009, the Commission held 
            hearings on damages in patent cases and recent changes in 
            permanent injunction and willful infringement standards in 
            the wake of recent court decisions.
 Operation of IP Markets. The hearings on March 18-19, 2009 
            explored how different industries use patents, the economic 
            and legal perspectives on IP and technology markets, and 
            the notice role of patents.
 Markets for Intellectual Property. This April 17, 2009 hearing 
            addressed new business models in the IP market; strategies 
            for buying, selling, and licensing patents; and the role of 
            secondary markets.
 Industry Focus. On May 4-5, 2009, in conjunction with the 
            Berkeley Center for Law and Technology and the Berkeley 
            Center for Competition Policy, the Commission considered 
            how markets for patents and technology operate in different 
            industries and how patent policy might be adjusted to 
            respond to problems and better promote innovation and 
            competition.
In addition to these five IP hearings, the Commission and the 
Technology Law and Public Policy Clinic at the University of Washington 
School of Law hosted a ``Digital Rights Management'' (DRM) conference 
on March 25, 2009. The conference addressed the use of DRM 
technologies, practices which are expected to become more prevalent in 
U.S. markets.

[[Page 64365]]

(g) Journalism and the Internet. On December 1-2, 2009, the FTC will 
host a two-day workshop titled ``From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will 
Journalism Survive the Internet Age?'' 74 FR 51605 (Oct. 7, 2009). The 
workshop will broadly consider the economics of journalism; the wide 
variety of new business and non-profit models for journalism; the 
financial, technological, and other challenges facing the news 
industry; and a variety of government policies, including antitrust, 
copyright, and tax policy, bearing on journalism. Witnesses will 
include journalists and representatives of news organizations, new 
media representatives, direct marketers, academics, and consumer 
advocates.
(h) Other Workshops. The FTC hosted a ``Fraud Forum'' on February 25-
26, 2009. The first day was open to the public and addressed the many 
aspects of fraud today. The second day was open only to domestic and 
international law enforcement officials and focused on improving 
interagency coordination in consumer fraud cases. On March 12, 2009, 
the FTC staff conducted a forum to gather information for an upcoming 
education campaign involving advertising and marketing to children.
Then-Chairman William E. Kovacic also issued a report that considered 
basic questions and future directions as the Commission approaches its 
100-year anniversary in 2014.\9\ The report was based on seven months 
of agency self-assessment and numerous consultations with officials in 
the public and private sector, and concluded, ``The progress of the 
Federal Trade Commission in its modern era has built heavily upon the 
willingness of its people to assess their work critically and explore 
possibilities for improvement. Critical self-study and external 
consultations not only have helped identify paths to achieving 
greatness, but also have renewed the institution's commitment to 
fulfill the destiny that Congress in 1914 wished it to achieve.'' The 
report, the latest element of that tradition, seeks to ingrain in the 
agency a habit of periodic self-assessment to illuminate the way to 
future improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Chairman William E. Kovacic, ``The Federal Trade Commission at 
100: Into Our 2nd Century - The Continuing Pursuit of Better Practices, 
A Report by Federal Trade Commission'' (January 2009), available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/01/ftc100rpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 movies, games, and music that 
the industries' rating or labeling systems say are inappropriate for 
children or warrant parental caution due to their violent content. 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 the industries' compliance with their 
own voluntary marketing guidelines.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the most recent report, 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 www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/
070412MarketingViolentEChildren.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff is currently working on the development of a mall intercept study 
of parental awareness and use of rating information on movie DVDs and 
on a telephone survey on parental awareness and attitudes toward the 
marketing and sale of Unrated ``Director's Cut'' DVDs. The results of 
this research will be reported in the Commission's seventh media 
violence report, with an anticipated release in the Fall of 2009.
Regarding advertising for alcoholic products, the Commission plans to 
issue each year orders requiring two to four suppliers to provide 
information about advertising and marketing practices and compliance 
with self-regulatory guidelines. In June 2009, the Commission issued 
orders pursuant to FTC Act Section 6(b) to three alcohol companies, 
asking for information about advertising and marketing practices. In 
the coming year, FTC will review the companies' responses to the orders 
in light of the provisions of the alcohol industry self-regulatory 
codes. The FTC will continue to monitor advertising and marketing 
efforts by other industry members. It will also continue to promote the 
``We Don't Serve Teens'' consumer education program, supporting the 
legal drinking age.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ More information can be found at http://www.dontserveteens.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will continue to examine issues related to food 
marketing to youth. In July 2008, the Commission published a report to 
Congress on this topic\12\ based on the responses of 44 members of the 
food and beverage industry to Special Orders issued by the Commission 
in 2007 under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. The Commission's report 
found that, in 2006, the surveyed companies spent more than $1.6 
billion in youth-directed marketing, often employing a variety of 
integrated techniques such as traditional media, digital- and Internet-
based platforms, packaging and in-store marketing, and cross-promotions 
with media and entertainment companies including the use of licensed 
characters. Among the report recommendations were that food companies 
adopt meaningful nutrition-based standards for marketing products to 
children and that companies define ``marketing to children'' to 
encompass the full spectrum of advertising and promotional techniques. 
After receipt of 2009 data from the companies during 2010, the 
Commission intends to conduct a follow-up study to assess the extent to 
which recommendations from the 2008 report have been implemented and 
whether additional measures are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of 
Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation'' (July 2008), 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is also spearheading an Interagency Working Group on 
Food Marketed to Children, made up of members of the FTC, the Food and 
Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
and the Department of Agriculture. The working group was established in 
response to a provision in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 
1105) and is charged with conducting a study and developing 
recommendations for nutritional standards for foods marketed to 
children ages 17 and under. Findings and recommendations will be 
submitted in a report to Congress by July 2010.
Additionally, in the industry self-regulation area, 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, 160 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

[[Page 64366]]

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 requirements of the 
Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that they can meet the rule's disclosure 
requirements. Nearly 300 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 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 offers franchisees the 
opportunity to mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since 
December 1998, twenty-one companies have agreed to participate in the 
program.
Rulemakings that Have International Effects
The OMB has requested that agencies discuss the international effects 
of their rulemakings in the regulatory plan narrative per the 
recommendation of the OMB Secretariat General of the European 
Commission joint report to the U.S.-European Union (EU) High Level 
Regulatory Cooperation Forum
And Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC).\13\ The Commission has 
statutory authority and implementing regulatory authority to prevent 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce among the states or 
with foreign nations. The Commission's Rules apply to foreign-based 
corporations doing business in the United States. As explained below, 
to the extent that foreign companies do business in the United States 
or their conduct from outside causes or is likely to cause reasonably 
foreseeable injury within the United States, these foreign entities are 
required to comply with the applicable statutes and rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ``Review of the Application of EU and US Regulatory Impact 
Assessment Guidelines on the Analysis of Impacts on International Trade 
and Investment'' (May 2008), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/assets/regulatory--matters--pdf/sg--omb--final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which provides 
that ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce 
... are ... declared unlawful.'' Recently, the ``Undertaking Spam, 
Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 
2006'' (or the ``U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006'' or ``SAFE WEB'') (Pub. L. 
No. 109-455, codified to the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  41 et seq.) 
amended Sec. 5(a)'s ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' to 
include such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that cause or 
are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United 
States or involve material conduct occurring within the United States. 
This amendment expressly confirmed the FTC's authority to redress harm 
in the United States caused by foreign actors and harm abroad caused by 
U.S. actors. This also clarified the factors for Commission 
consideration in establishing Trade Regulation Rules to remedy unfair 
or deceptive acts or practices that occur on an industry-wide basis. 
Under Section 18 of the FTC Act, the Commission is authorized to 
prescribe ``rules which define with specificity acts or practices which 
are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce'' 
within the meaning of Section 5(a)(1) of the Act.
Turning to specific rules and rulemakings and their international 
effects or of potential international interest, the Premerger 
Notification Rules, 16 CFR 801-803, for example, apply to mergers or 
acquisitions reaching a certain size threshold and where one or both 
parties are of a certain size. In addition, the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 provided the Commission with authority to 
promulgate a rule addressing manipulation of wholesale prices for 
petroleum products and authorizes rule provisions prohibiting persons 
from supplying misleading or deceptive information or data to certain 
entities. As discussed within Final Actions below, the Commission 
announced a final rule on August 6, 2009.
For the Commission's consumer protection mission, some of the rules 
currently being reviewed may have effects on international companies 
doing business in the United States or on U.S. businesses regarding 
their dealings with foreigners. These include, among other things, the 
provisions of the recently promulgated Health Breach Notification Rule, 
16 CFR 318, which applies to foreign vendors of personal health records 
and related entities. Other rules that are pending or under review and 
that may have an effect on international commerce include: the 
Regulations under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education 
Act of 1986, 16 CFR 307; Trade Regulation Rules adopted pursuant to the 
Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (900 Number 
Rule), 16 CFR 308; Telemarketing Sales Act, which prohibit calls to 
persons listed on the Do-Not-Call list, 16 CFR 310; the rulemakings on 
Mortgage Acts and Practices and Mortgage Assistance Relief Services, to 
be codified at 16 CFR 321, 322; Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Used 
in Home Entertainment Systems, 16 CFR 432; and the Trade Regulation 
Rule on Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise, which covers purchases on 
the Internet, 16 CFR 435.
In addition, many of the FTC Guides also apply to foreign entities 
doing business in the United States or are of interest to such foreign 
entities. These include among others: Guides for the Jewelry, Precious 
Metals, and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR 23; the Guides Concerning the Use 
of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 C.F.R. 255; Guides 
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles, 16 CFR 259; 
and the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 
260. The FTC also issued and applies an Enforcement Statement on the 
use of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in advertising and 
labeling.\14\ The principles set forth in this enforcement policy 
statement apply to U.S. origin claims included in labeling, 
advertising, other promotional materials, and all other forms of 
marketing, including marketing through digital or electronic means such 
as the Internet or electronic mail.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/usajump.shtm.
\15\ The Made in USA Enforcement Statement does not cover products 
specifically subject to the country-of-origin labeling requirements of 
the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products 
Labeling Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, or the American Automobile 
Labeling Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
The Congress has enacted laws requiring the Commission to undertake 
rulemakings and studies. They include at least 15 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) and the related 
Credit

[[Page 64367]]

Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, Pub. L. 
No. 111-24 (CARD Act); the rulemaking pursuant to the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation Improvements Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-242 
(FDICIA); model privacy notices under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; the 
rulemakings concerning gasoline price manipulation and energy labeling 
for lamps required or authorized by the Energy Security and 
Independence Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140; temporary breach 
notification requirements for vendors of personal health records under 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5; and 
a rulemaking on mortgage loans pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations 
Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8. The Final Actions section below 
describes actions taken on the required rulemakings and studies since 
the 2008 Regulatory Plan was published.
FACTA Rules. The Commission has already issued nearly all of the rules 
required by FACTA. These rules are codified in several parts of 16 CFR 
600 et seq. The remaining active FACTA rulemakings are:
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 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 64698. The comment period ended on January 5, 
            2005. Staff reviewed the comments and is monitoring the 
            credit score market, where prices have continued to remain 
            reasonable and competitive.
2. Risk Based Pricing Rule-The Commission jointly with the Federal 
            Reserve published a risk-based pricing proposal for comment 
            on May 19, 2008. 73 FR 28966. The comment period ended on 
            August 18, 2008. Risk-based pricing refers to the practice 
            of setting or adjusting the price and other terms of credit 
            offered or extended to a particular consumer to reflect the 
            risk of nonpayment by that consumer. This statutorily-
            required rulemaking would address the form, content, time, 
            manner, definitions, exceptions, and model of a risk-based 
            pricing notice. The agencies anticipate issuing a final 
            rule in December 2009.
3. Furnisher Rules-On July 1, 2009, the Agencies issued furnisher 
            accuracy and dispute rules which are discussed under 
            Completed Actions below. On the same date, the Agencies 
            also issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
            (``ANPRM'') that seeks to obtain information that would 
            assist in determining whether it would be appropriate to 
            propose an addition to one of the guidelines that would 
            delineate the circumstances under which a furnisher would 
            be expected to provide an account opening date, or any 
            other types of information, to a consumer reporting agency 
            to promote the integrity of the information. 74 FR 31529. 
            The comment period closed on August 31, 2009.
4. Advertising Disclosure Rule for Free Credit Reports-Section 205 of 
            the CARD Act requires the Commission to issue a rule to 
            prevent deceptive marketing of ``free credit reports.'' On 
            October 7, 2009, the Commission issued an NPRM to amend the 
            Free Credit Reports Rule to require prominent disclosures 
            in advertising for ``free credit reports'' and to address 
            practices which interfere with consumers' ability to obtain 
            file disclosures from consumer reporting agencies. 74 FR 
            52915 (Oct. 15, 2009). Comments on the NPRM are due on 
            November 30, 2009.
FACTA Study on Insurance Scores. On March 27, 2009, the Commission 
issued Amended Orders to File a Special Report amending the compulsory 
process resolution dated May 16, 2008 titled ``Resolution Directing Use 
of Compulsory Process to Study the Effects of Credit Scores and Credit-
Based Insurance Scores Under Section 215 of the FACT Act.'' This 
Amended Order requires certain insurance companies to produce 
information for a study on the use and effect of credit-based insurance 
scores on consumers of homeowner's insurance. The Amended Orders were 
served on nine of the largest private providers of homeowners insurance 
on or about April 6, 2009; it is anticipated the insurers will have 
fully complied with the Amended Orders by the middle of September, 
2009. Staff has begun reviewing the data produced by the insurers and 
is working to identify a sample set of data to be used for the study.
FACTA Study on Credit Reports. Pending approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget, the FTC plans to conduct a national study of the 
accuracy of consumer reports in connection with Section 319 of the FACT 
Act. This study is a follow-up to the Commission's two previous pilot 
studies that were undertaken to evaluate a potential design for a 
national study. Section 319 required the FTC to study the accuracy and 
completeness of information in consumers' credit reports and to 
consider methods for improving the accuracy and completeness of such 
information. Section 319 also required the Commission to issue a series 
of biennial reports to Congress over a period of eleven years from the 
date of enactment (2003).
FDICIA Rule. 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 on an annual basis from 
appropriating funds for purposes of complying with FDICIA. The 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 and subsequent yearly 
appropriations have not imposed the same funding prohibition and the 
Commission issued an NPRM on March 16, 2005, 70 FR 12823, and a revised 
NPRM on March 14, 2009. 74 FR 10843. Staff is reviewing the comments on 
the revised NPRM and expects to forward a recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2009.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Rule. Please see Final Actions for information 
about a final GLB Rule.
Energy Security and Independence Act Rules. Several sections of the 
Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (ESIA), require or 
authorize, among other things, that the Commission promulgate rules 
concerning gas price manipulation and labeling requirements for various 
categories of biodiesel fuels, as well as energy labeling requirements 
for certain appliances including light bulbs.\16\ The active 
rulemakings under ESIA are discussed below and, for the Market 
Manipulation Rulemaking, in the Final Actions section.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The rulemaking concerning labeling for biofuels was completed in 
2008.
\17\ In addition, this act provides the Commission with authority to 
promulgate energy labeling rules for consumer electronics; and the 
Commission issued an ANPRM in May 2009. See Ongoing Reviews below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 321 of the ESIA requires the Commission to conduct a rulemaking 
to consider the effectiveness of current energy labeling for lamps 
(commonly referred to as ``light bulbs'') and to consider alternative 
labeling approaches. In response to that

[[Page 64368]]

directive, the Commission issued an ANPRM on July 17, 2008, seeking 
comments on the effectiveness of current labeling requirements for lamp 
packages and possible alternatives to those requirements. 73 FR 40988. 
As part of this effort, the Commission held a public roundtable meeting 
on September 15, 2008; and the comment period ended on September 29, 
2008. The Commission announced an NPRM on October 27, 2009, seeking 
comments about proposed labeling requirements for light bulbs. 74 FR 
57950 (Nov. 10, 2009). Comments are due by December 28, 2009. The 
Commission will take final action before June 2010.
Mortgage Loans Rule. Section 626 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 
2009 directed the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding with 
respect to mortgage loans and prescribed that any violation of the rule 
shall be treated as a violation of a rule under section 18 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices. On June 1, 2009, the Commission published an ANPRM in two 
parts: (1) Mortgage Acts and Practices through the life cycle of the 
mortgage loan (i.e., loan advertising, marketing, origination, 
appraisals, and servicing), 74 FR 26118, and (2) Mortgage Assistance 
Relief Services (practices of entities providing assistance to 
consumers in modifying mortgage loans or avoiding foreclosure), 74 FR 
26130. The comment periods for the ANPRMs have closed. Staff is 
reviewing the comments and expects to send a recommendation to the 
Commission by fall 2009 relating to further proposed actions.
Please see Final Actions below for information about the statutorily 
required Temporary Breach Notification Rule.
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.
Calendar Year 2008-09 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. On February 5, 2009, the Commission published its 
modified ten-year schedule of review and announced that it would 
initiate the review of two rules and one guide during 2009: (1) the 
Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification, and Posting Rule (Fuel Ratings 
Rule), 16 CFR 306, (2) the Rule Concerning Prenotification Negative 
Option Plans (Negative Option Rule), 16 CFR 425, and (3) the Guides for 
Private Vocational and Distance Education Schools (Vocational School 
Guides), 16 CFR 254. 74 FR 6129 (Feb. 5, 2009). Discussion of these 
three reviews follows.
Fuel Ratings Rule. The Fuel Ratings Rule sets out a uniform method for 
determining the octane rating of gasoline from the refiner through the 
chain of distribution to the point of retail sale. The rule enables 
consumers to buy gasoline with an appropriate octane rating for their 
vehicle and establishes standard procedures for determining, 
certifying, and posting octane ratings. On March 3, 2009, the 
Commission published an ANPRM and requested comments on the rule as 
part of its systematic periodic review of current rules and guides. 74 
FR 9054. Staff anticipates that the Commission will issue an NPRM 
during December 2009.
Negative Option Rule. The Negative Option Rule governs the operation of 
prenotification subscription plans. Under these plans, sellers ship 
merchandise automatically to their subscribers and bill them for the 
merchandise within a prescribed time. The rule protects consumers by 
requiring the disclosure of the terms of membership clearly and 
conspicuously and establishes procedures for administering the 
subscription plans. An ANPRM was published on May 14, 2009, 74 FR 
22720, and the comment period ended on July 27, 2009. Several states, a 
county government agency, and an industry trade association filed 
requests seeking to extend the comment period but the requests were so 
close to the end of the comment period we could not extend the period. 
On August 7, 2009, the Commission granted the requests to reopen and 
extended the comment period until October 13, 2009.
Vocational Schools Guides. The Commission is seeking public comments on 
its Private Vocational and Distance Education Schools Guides, commonly 
known as the Vocational Schools Guides. 74 FR 37973 (July 30, 2009). 
Issued in 1972 and most recently amended in 1998 to add a provision 
addressing misrepresentations related to post-graduation employment, 
the guides advise businesses offering vocational training courses - 
either on the school's premises or through distance education, such as 
correspondence courses or the Internet - how to avoid unfair and 
deceptive practices in the advertising, marketing, or sale of their 
courses. The comment period closed on October 16, 2009.
Ongoing Reviews
Since the publication of the 2008 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 
initiated two rulemaking proceedings and is continuing review of a 
number of rules and guides. The two new rulemaking proceedings are 
discussed first under (a) Rules, followed by the other rule reviews and 
then (b) Guides.
(a) Rules
Consumer Electronics Rule. The Commission has authority under section 
325 of the ESIA to promulgate energy labeling rules for consumer 
electronics (Consumer Electronics Rule). On March 16, 2009, the 
Commission published an ANPRM seeking comments on whether it should 
require labels for consumer

[[Page 64369]]

electronics, including televisions, computers, video recorder boxes, 
and certain other equipment; the disclosures, need, and format of 
labels; and appropriate test procedures. 74 FR 11045. The comment 
period ended on May 14, 2009. Staff is currently reviewing the comments 
and anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by the end 
of 2009.
Debt Relief Services TSR Rule. On July 30, 2009, the Commission 
approved an NPRM seeking comments on a proposal to amend the 
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to address the sale of debt relief 
services, including: for-profit credit counselors; debt settlement 
companies that promise to obtain substantially reduced, lump sum 
settlements of consumers' debts; and debt negotiators that offer to 
obtain interest rate reductions or other concessions to lower 
consumers' monthly payments (Debt Relief Services TSR Rule) 74 FR 41988 
(Aug. 19, 2009). The proposed amendments would define ``debt relief 
services,'' to ensure that telemarketing transactions involving these 
services would be subject to the TSR, mandate certain disclosures, and 
prohibit misrepresentations and the request or receipt of payment for 
these services until services have been performed and documented. The 
comment period was initially set to close on October 9, 2009, but was 
extended to October 26, 2009. Staff held a public forum on November 4, 
2009, which afforded Commission staff and interested parties an 
opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments as well as any issues 
raised in comments in response thereto.
Mail Order Rule. The Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (or the 
Mail Order Rule), 16 CFR 435, 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 sought 
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. 72 FR 51728 (Sept. 11, 2007). Staff has reviewed the comments 
and anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by early 
2010.
Business Opportunity Rule. The proposed Business Opportunity Rule stems 
from the recently concluded review of the Franchise Rule, where staff 
recommended that the rule be split into two parts; one part addressing 
franchise issues and another part addressing business opportunity 
issues. After reviewing the comments from an NPRM, 71 FR 19054 (Apr. 
12, 2006), the Commission issued a revised NPRM on March 26, 2008, that 
would require business opportunity sellers to furnish prospective 
purchasers with specific information that is material to the consumer's 
decision as to whether to purchase a business opportunity and which 
should help the purchaser identify fraudulent offerings. 73 FR 16110. 
The revised NPRM comment period ended on May 27, 2008, and the rebuttal 
comment period ended on June 16, 2008. A public workshop was held on 
June 1, 2009, to explore changes to the proposed rule and a related 
comment period closed on June 30, 2009. The Commission plans to issue a 
staff report on the Business Opportunity Rule in early 2010 and seek 
comment on the report.
Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules. For the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger 
Notification Rules (HSR Rules), 16 CFR 801-803, Bureau of Competition 
staff is continuing to review various HSR Rule provisions. Staff is 
also reviewing the HSR Form and anticipates sending a recommendation to 
the Commission in January 2010.
Used Car Rule. The Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (Used Car 
Rule), 16 CFR 455, sets out the general duties of a used vehicle 
dealer, requires that a completed Buyers Guide be posted at all times 
on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for sale, and 
mandates disclosure of 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 Commission 
published a notice seeking public comments on the effectiveness and 
impact of the rule. 73 FR 42285 (July 21, 2008). The notice seeks 
comments on a range of issues including, among others, whether a 
bilingual Buyers Guide would be useful or practicable, as well as what 
form such a Buyers Guide should take. Second, the notice seeks comments 
on possible changes to the Buyers Guide that reflect new warranty 
products such as certified used car warranties, that have become 
increasingly popular since the rule was last reviewed. Finally, the 
notice seeks comments on other issues including the continuing need for 
the rule and its economic impact, the effect of the rule on deception 
in the used car market, and the rule's interaction with other 
regulations. The comment period ended on September 19, 2008, and staff 
anticipates sending its recommendation to the Commission during fall 
2009.
Amplifier Rule. The Amplifier Rule, 16 CFR 432, assists consumers in 
purchasing by standardizing the measurement and disclosure of various 
performance attributes of power amplification equipment for home 
entertainment purposes. The rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice for manufacturers and sellers of sound power amplification 
equipment for home entertainment purposes to fail to disclose certain 
performance information in connection with direct or indirect 
representations of power output, power band, frequency or distortion 
characteristics. The rule also sets out standard test conditions for 
performing the measurements that support the required performance 
disclosures. On February 27, 2008, the Commission published a request 
for comments including a number of specific issues related to changes 
in technology and products. 73 FR 10403. The comment period ended on 
May 12, 2008, and staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the 
Commission by fall 2009.
Cooling-Off Rule. The Cooling-Off Rule requires that a consumer be 
given a three-day right to cancel certain sales greater than $25.00 
that occur at a place other than a seller's place of business. The rule 
also requires a seller to notify buyers orally of the right to cancel; 
to provide buyers with a dated receipt or copy of the contract 
containing the name and address of the seller and notice of 
cancellation rights; and to provide buyers with forms which buyers may 
use to cancel the contract. An ANPRM seeking comment was published on 
April 21, 2009. 74 FR 18170. The comment period was supposed to close 
on June 22, 2009, but was extended to September 25, 2009. 74 FR 36972 
(July 27, 2009). Staff is reviewing the comments and expects to prepare 
a recommendation for the Commission during the early part of 2010.
Smokeless Tobacco Regulations. The Commission's review of the 
Regulations Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education 
Act of 1986 (Smokeless Tobacco Regulations), 16 CFR 307, is ongoing. 
The Smokeless Tobacco Regulations govern the format and display of 
statutorily-mandated health warnings on all packages and advertisements 
for smokeless tobacco. Staff anticipates Commission action

[[Page 64370]]

regarding review of this rule by early 2010.
Pay-Per-Call Rule. The Commission's review of the Pay-Per-Call Rule, 16 
CFR 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 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 expansion of the rule's coverage. Staff anticipates 
forwarding its recommendation to the Commission by December 2010.
(b) Guides
Fuel Economy Guide. The Fuel Economy Guide for new automobiles, 16 CFR 
259, was adopted in 1975 to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising 
and to facilitate the use of fuel economy information in advertising. 
As part of its regular review of all rules and guides, the Commission 
issued a request for comments on May 9, 2007, on whether to retain or 
amend the guide. 72 FR 72328. 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 
Environmental Protection Agency amendments to fuel economy labeling 
requirements for automobiles. On April 28, 2009, the Commission 
published proposed amendments to the Guide. The deadline for comments 
was June 16, 2009. Staff is reviewing the comments and expects to make 
a recommendation by the end of 2009.
Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Guides. After issuing a staff 
advisory opinion indicating that the Commission's current Guides for 
Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR 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 
(ppt) pure platinum and no other platinum group metals. 70 FR 38834 
(July 6, 2005). After reviewing the comments, the Commission issued a 
notice seeking comment on proposals to amend the platinum section of 
the Guides to address the new platinum alloys. 73 FR 10190 (Feb. 26, 
2008). The extended comment period ended August 25, 2008. Staff expects 
that the Commission will amend the Guides during late 2009 to provide 
that marketers may non-deceptively mark and describe an alloy of 
platinum and non-precious metals consisting of at least 500 parts per 
thousand (ppt), but less than 850 ppt, pure platinum and less than 950 
ppt total platinum group metals (PGM) as ``platinum,'' provided they 
make certain disclosures.
Green Guides. The Commission previously announced that it would review 
the Green Guides, 16 CFR 260. 73 FR 66091 (Nov. 27, 2007). The Green 
Guides outline general principles that apply to all environmental 
marketing claims and provide guidance regarding specific environmental 
claims. The Commission sought comment on the need for the guides and 
their economic impact, the effect of the guides on the accuracy of 
various environmental claims, and the interaction of the guides with 
other environmental marketing regulations. As part of its review, 
during 2008, the Commission held workshops and received comments in 
three specific areas: 1) carbon offsets and renewable energy 
certificates (Jan. 8, 2008); 2) environmental packaging claims and 
green packaging (April 30, 2008); and 3) developments in green building 
and textiles claims and consumer perception of such claims (July 15, 
2008). Staff is reviewing the comments the Commission has received and 
is conducting consumer research.
FCRA Commentary. Finally, 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 the middle of 2010.
Final Actions
Since the publication of the 2008 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 
issued the following final rules:
Call Abandonment TSR Amendments. The Commission issued a final rule 
implementing proposed Call Abandonment amendments to the TSR. 73 FR 
51164 (Aug. 29, 2008). The amendments expressly prohibited 
telemarketing sales calls that deliver prerecorded messages, whether 
answered in person by a consumer or by an answering machine or 
voicemail service, unless the seller has previously obtained the 
recipient's signed, written agreement to receive such calls. The 
amendments also changed 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 ended its 
temporary policy during the rulemaking of forbearing from bringing 
enforcement actions against sellers and telemarketers who placed 
prerecorded calls that meet certain specified conditions that would be 
inconsistent with the new requirements. There was a phase-in of various 
effective dates, with the last one being the provision requiring 
permission from consumers to receive such calls, which became effective 
September 1, 2009.
Market Manipulation Rule. Section 811 of the ESIA prohibits any 
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the 
wholesale purchase, or sale of crude oil, gasoline, or other petroleum 
distillate in contravention of rules or regulations the Commission may 
prescribe (Market Manipulation Rule). Section 813 specifies the methods 
of enforcing such a rule. The Commission announced an ANPRM requesting 
comments on the manner in which it should carry out its 
responsibilities to promulgate regulations under these sections. 73 FR 
25614 (May 7, 2008). After considering the comments, the Commission 
issued an NPRM on August 19, 2008, 73 FR 53393, and held a workshop on 
November 6, 2008. The Commission issued a revised NPRM on April 22, 
2009, 74 FR 18304; and the comment period on the revised NPRM ended on 
May 20, 2009. On August 6, 2009, the Commission announced a final rule 
that prohibits fraud or deceit in wholesale markets for petroleum 
products, and intentional omissions of material information that are 
likely to distort market conditions for any such product. 74 FR 40686 
(Aug. 12, 2009). The rule was effective on November 4, 2009. On 
November 13, 2009, the FTC issued its Compliance Guide for these 
Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations. The Guide answers commonly 
asked questions and examines various scenarios to help those trading in 
wholesale petroleum markets comply

[[Page 64371]]

with the regulations. The Guide is available on the FTC's Web site at: 
www.ftc.gov/ftc/oilgas/rules.htm.
Health Breach Notification Rule. Section 13407 of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 required the Commission to issue rules 
requiring vendors of personal health records and third parties that 
offer products or services through the web sites of vendors to notify 
individuals when the security of their individually identifiable health 
information is breached. The Commission published an NPRM on April 20, 
2009 (74 FR 17914), seeking comments. The Commission announced the 
final rule on August 17, 2009. 74 FR 42962 (Aug. 25, 2009).
FACTA Furnisher Rule. The Commission also published one final rule 
mandated by FACTA, the Furnisher Rule. 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 
published final rules on July 1, 2009. 74 FR 31484.
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising Guides. On January 16, 
2007, the Commission requested public comments on the overall costs, 
benefits, and regulatory and economic impact of its Guides Concerning 
the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR 255. 
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). After reviewing 
the comments, the Commission proposed changes to the guides and 
requested public comments. 73 FR 72374 (Nov. 28, 2008). The proposed 
revisions address consumer endorsements, expert endorsements, 
endorsement by organizations, and disclosure of material connections 
between advertisers and endorsers. On the issue of consumer 
endorsements, the proposed revisions explain that when ads using 
consumer testimonials convey that the endorser's experience is 
representative of what consumers will generally achieve and the 
advertiser does not possess adequate substantiation for this 
representation, the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously 
disclose the results consumers actually can expect to achieve. The 
initial comment period ended on January 30, 2009, but was subsequently 
extended to March 2, 2009. 74 FR 5810 (Feb. 2, 2009). On October 5, 
2009, the Commission announced it would retain a revised version of the 
guides, effective on December 1, 2009. 74 FR 53124 (Oct. 15, 2009).
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Rule. 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\18\ is 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. On November 
17, 2009, the Agencies announced a model privacy form that financial 
institutions may rely on as a safe harbor to provide disclosures under 
the privacy rules. In addition, the Agencies other than the SEC are 
eliminating the safe harbor permitted for notices based on the Sample 
Clauses currently contained in the privacy rules if the notice is 
provided after December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 E.O. 12866, which directs executive branch agencies to develop 
a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their significant existing 
regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In addition, the final rules 
issued by the Commission continue to be consistent with the President's 
Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles, Executive Order 
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.'' E.O. 12866, section 1.
II. REGULATORY ACTIONS
The Commission has one proposed rule that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\19\ 
This is the FACTA Risk Based Pricing Final Rule, which staff 
anticipates being approved by the Commission during early 2010. There 
is further information about this under the prior heading of 
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Section 3(f) of the Executive Order defines a regulatory action to 
be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive 
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[[Page 64372]]




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. As the Indian gaming 
industry continues to grow and evolve, the NIGC must be continually 
attentive to reviewing and revising its existing regulations to ensure 
that they do not become outdated and lose their usefulness. To that 
end, the NIGC is currently revising its existing regulations concerning 
background investigations and licenses to ensure the continued 
integrity of the Indian gaming industry, and that background 
investigations for key employees and primary management officials are 
performed as thoroughly and efficiently as possible, and are updated on 
a regular, ongoing basis. In addition, the NIGC is currently revising 
its existing regulations on minimum internal control standards to 
ensure that they remain up to date, and continue to adequately protect 
against the risks inherent in gambling, especially as gaming technology 
continues to evolve.
 As new developments and trends of concern to effective gaming 
regulation are most often first perceived and addressed on the gaming 
floors and in the backs of the gaming houses themselves, it is often 
that the all-day, everyday tribal gaming regulators present at the 
tribal gaming facilities are the first to identify weaknesses in the 
gaming regulatory structure. To detect these concerns as early as 
possible, 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 
ongoing consultations with regulated tribes will continue to play an 
important role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




176. TRIBAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND TIMING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706(b)(3); 25 USC 2706(b)(10); 25 USC 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii); 25 USC 
2710(c)(1)-(2); 25 USC 2710(d)(A)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 556; 25 CFR 558


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to: 
modify certain regulations concerning background investigations and 
licensing to streamline the process for submitting information; ensure 
that the process complies with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA); 
and distinguish the requirements for temporary and permanent licenses.


Statement of Need:


Modifications to specific background investigation and licensing 
regulations are needed to ensure compliance with the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), which mandates that certain notifications be 
submitted to the Commission. Modifications are also needed to reduce 
the quantity of documents submitted to the Commission under these 
regulations and to distinguish the requirements for temporary and 
permanent licenses.


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 to 
assure 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)). Sections 2710(b)(2)(F) and 2710(d)(A) 
require Tribes to have an adequate system for background investigations 
of primary management officials and key employees and inform the 
Commission of the results of those investigations. Under section 
2710(c), the Commission may also object to licenses or require a tribe 
to suspend a license. The Commission relies on these sections of the 
statute to authorize the modification of the background and licensing 
regulations to ensure compliance with IGRA, reduce the quantity of 
documents submitted to the Commission, and distinguish the requirements 
for temporary and permanent licenses.


Alternatives:


If the Commission does not modify these regulations to reduce the 
quantity of documents submitted under them, tribes will continue to be 
required to submit these documents to the Commission. Further, to 
ensure compliance with IGRA, the modifications mandating notifications 
to the Commission regarding the results of background checks and the 
issuance of temporary and permanent gaming licenses must be made.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


These modifications to the background investigation and licensing 
regulations will reduce the cost of regulation to the Federal 
Government by reducing the amount of documents received from tribes 
that must be processed and retained. Further, these modifications will 
reduce the quantity of documents that tribes are required to submit to 
the NIGC, which will result in a cost savings to the tribes. There are 
minimal anticipated cost increases to tribal governments due to 
additional notifications to the NIGC.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64373]]

Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Heather M Nakai
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW
Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632 7066
RIN: 3141-AA15
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC



177. CLASS II AND CLASS III MINIMUM INTERNAL CONTROL STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706(b)(10); 25 USC 2706(b)(1)-(4); 25 USC 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi); 25 
USC 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 542; 25 CFR 543


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Indian Gaming Commission is revising the existing minimum 
internal control standards (MICS) to reflect the changing technologies 
in the industry. The Commission will routinely revise the MICS in 
response to these changes. It is also continuing with its plan to 
clarify the regulatory structure by segregating Class II MICS from 
Class III.


Statement of Need:


The rapid evolution of gaming technology and regulatory structures in 
Indian gaming brings new risks and requires a distinction between the 
control standards for Class II and Class III gaming. Periodic review 
and revision of existing standards are necessary to ensure that they 
remain relevant and continue to adequately protect tribal gaming assets 
and the interests of stakeholders and the gaming public.


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)). This 
responsibility includes inspecting and examining the premises located 
on Indian lands on which Class II gaming is conducted; and auditing all 
papers, books, and records respecting gross revenues of Class II gaming 
conducted on Indian lands and any other matters necessary to carry out 
the duties of the Commission under this chapter. (25 U.S.C. 
2706(b)(2),(4)). With regard to Class III gaming, section 
2710(d)(3)(C)(vi) allows Tribal-State compacts to include negotiated 
provisions governing the standards for operation of gaming activity, 
and where states and tribes cannot reach agreement, section 
2710(d)(7)(B)(vii) allows the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
procedures in place of a compact whereby a particular tribe may conduct 
Class III gaming. In each of the procedures approved to date, the 
Secretary has delegated the responsibility for gaming standards and 
oversight to the NIGC. The Commission relies on these sections of the 
statute to authorize the promulgation of MICS to ensure integrity in 
tribal gaming.


Alternatives:


If the Commission does not periodically update the MICS, the 
regulations that govern tribal gaming will not address changing 
technology and gaming methods.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Updated MICS will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their 
gaming activities.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
First NPRM                      12/01/04                    69 FR 69847
Second NPRM                     03/10/05                    70 FR 11893
Final Action on First 
    Rule                        05/04/05                    70 FR 23011
Final Action on Second 
    Rule                        08/12/05                    70 FR 47097
Third NPRM                      11/15/05                    70 FR 69293
Final Action on Third 
    Rule (1)                    05/11/06                    71 FR 27385
Fourth NPRM                     12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Jennifer Ward
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW.
Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA27
BILLING CODE 7565-01-S

[[Page 64374]]




POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION (PRC)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The Postal Regulatory Commission serves as the primary regulator of 
the United States Postal Service. Its primary mission is to ensure 
accountability and transparency of the Postal Service to Congress, 
stakeholders and the general public on issues such as financial 
operations, pricing policies, and delivery performance.
In fiscal year 2010, the Commission will evaluate its current 
regulations with a goal of improving and streamlining those regulations 
to ensure that the Postal Service is in full compliance with applicable 
law. The Commission's principal regulatory priority for fiscal year 
2010 is to develop and establish regulations relating to the Periodic 
Reporting of Service Performance Measurements and Customer Satisfaction 
for Postal Service market dominant products. The Commission has begun 
this process and will continue to do so well into fiscal year 2010.
_______________________________________________________________________



PRC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




178.  PERIODIC REPORTING OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS 
AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


39 USC 3652(a)(2)(B); 39 USC 3652(e); 39 USC 3651


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 3652(a)(2)(B) of title 39 requires the United States Postal 
Service to prepare and submit to the Postal Regulatory Commission 
periodic reports which in part provide measures of the quality of 
service afforded each market dominant product in terms of the level of 
service and the degree of customer satisfaction. Section 3652(e) 
directs the Postal Regulatory Commission to prescribe the content and 
form of such reports provided by the United States Postal Service under 
39 USC 3652. Section 3651(c) also authorizes the Postal Regulatory 
Commission to obtain information from the Postal Service in order to 
prepare periodic reports. This regulation will fulfill the Commission's 
statutory responsibility to prescribe the content and form of reports 
related to the quality of service.


Statement of Need:


Establishing requirements for the reporting of quality of service 
afforded each market dominant product is required by the Postal 
Accountability and Enhancement Act. The reporting of quality of service 
provides visibility into the United States Postal Service's provision 
of those products. This is a necessary element of a modern system of 
regulation to ensure that quality of service is not compromised under a 
new price cap based rate system. Congress tasked the Postal Regulatory 
Commission with the job of prescribing reporting requirements to 
accomplish these goals. These regulations are the Commission's 
implementation of that Congressional directive.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title 39 USC 3652(a)(2)(B) and 39 USC 3651 require the United States 
Postal Service to prepare and submit to the Postal Regulatory 
Commission periodic reports which in part provide measures of the 
quality of service afforded each market dominant product. Title 39 USC 
3652(e) requires the Postal Regulatory Commission to issue regulations 
to prescribe the content and form of public reports (and any nonpublic 
annex and supporting matter relating to the report) provided by the 
Postal Service under 39 USC 3652. Title 39 USC 3651(c) also authorizes 
the Postal Regulatory Commission to obtain information from the Postal 
Service in order to prepare periodic reports.


Alternatives:


There are no alternative methods of complying with the requirements of 
39 USC 3652(e) or 39 USC 3651 other than by issuing regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The United States Postal Service will incur costs associated with 
developing and implementing systems to measure the quality of service 
afforded each market dominant product. The United States Postal Service 
also will incur the costs of annual reporting. The Postal Regulatory 
Commission will incur the costs of reviewing annual reports. These 
costs were anticipated by Congress when establishing the reporting 
requirements of 39 USC 3651 and 39 USC 3652. The benefits of incurring 
these costs are to provide visibility into the quality of service 
afforded each market dominant product provided by the United States 
Postal Service.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/25/09                    74 FR 49190
NPRM Comment Period End         10/26/09
Reply Comment Deadline          11/24/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


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-AA05
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S