[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions]
[The Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
The Regulatory Plan
____________________________________________________________________
[[Page 79455]]
OPEN GOVERNMENT AND EVIDENCE-BASED REGULATION
There is a close connection, even an inextricable
relationship, between open government and evidence-
based regulation. If regulatory choices are based on
careful analysis of the evidence, and if opportunities
are provided for public review and comment, we will be
able to identify sensible and pragmatic approaches that
are designed to promote entrepreneurship, innovation,
job creation, and economic growth.
Since his inauguration, President Obama has placed a
great deal of emphasis on open government. In requiring
openness, the President has emphasized three separate
points. First, he has stressed the importance of
accountability. In his words, openness ``will
strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and
effectiveness in Government.'' Second, the President
has said that ``[k]nowledge is widely dispersed in
society, and public officials benefit from having
access to that dispersed knowledge'' and hence to
``collective expertise and wisdom.'' Third, he has
emphasized the importance of providing people with
information that they ``can readily find and use.'' For
this reason, he has said that agencies ``should harness
new technologies'' and ``solicit public feedback to
identify information of greatest use to the public.''
At the same time, the Administration has been placing a
great deal of emphasis on sound analysis and on
ensuring a careful accounting of the anticipated
consequences of regulation, including both benefits and
costs. While regulation can promote vital public goods,
such as protection of safety, health, and financial
stability, the President has said, ``Sometimes
regulation fails, and sometimes its benefits do not
justify its costs.''
The word ``analysis,'' of course, includes a number of
distinct but overlapping approaches, such as the cost-
benefit analysis required by Executive Order 12866 and
the regulatory flexibility analysis required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Executive Order 12866
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to
give careful consideration to both costs and benefits
and to ensure that the benefits of regulation justify
the costs. It is worth noting that, in part because of
this Administration's commitment to careful analysis,
the quantified benefits of final rules significantly
exceeded the quantified costs for calendar year 2009-
and that the net benefits of final regulations for the
first year of the Obama Administration far exceeded
those of the first year for the Clinton and Bush
Administrations:
[[Page 79456]]
Figure 1: Annual Estimated Net Benefits of
Major Rules
First Calendar Year of an Administration (1/21
to 12/31)
It is important to emphasize that the monetized
benefits are high. We have issued rules and undertaken
initiatives that are saving lives on the highways and
in workplaces; reducing air and water pollution;
increasing fuel economy, thus saving money while
reducing pollution; making both trains and planes
safer; helping students to obtain school loans and so
to attend college; protecting consumers and investors
against manipulation, fraud, and conflicts of interest;
increasing energy efficiency, saving billions of
dollars while increasing energy security; combating
childhood obesity; and creating a ``race to the top''
in education.
A central goal for the upcoming period is to ensure
that regulations do not impose unjustified burdens and
that if the costs and burdens are significant, they are
producing even more significant gains. Analysis of
regulatory consequences is part of a broad effort to
subject regulatory decisions to public scrutiny, with
close reference to evidence, and thus improving them--
not least by pointing the way toward reduced burdens
and innovative solutions.
By promoting accountability, open government policies
can help to track government's own performance. In that
way, such policies make public officials accountable
for what they do, including in the regulatory arena.
Performance review matters; it is a hallmark of this
Administration. Regulatory analysis is best seen as a
form of performance review for Federal rules, typically
done in advance (and sometimes done retrospectively).
Before acting, regulators should attempt to obtain a
clear and concrete understanding of the likely
consequences of what they propose to do. In its 2009
Report on the Benefits and Costs of Federal
Regulations, OMB specifically underlined the
relationship among careful analysis, evidence-based
regulation, and open government. As the Report says,
``Indeed, careful regulatory analysis, if transparent
in its assumptions and subject to public scru
[[Page 79457]]
tiny, should be seen as part and parcel of open
government. It helps to ensure that policies are not
based on speculation and guesswork, but instead on a
sense of the likely consequences of alternative courses
of action. It helps to reduce the risk of
insufficiently justified regulation, imposing serious
burdens and costs for inadequate reason. It also helps
to reduce the risk of insufficiently protective
regulation, failing to go as far as proper analysis
suggests. We believe that regulatory analysis should be
developed and designed in a way that fits with the
commitment to open government.''
With these points in mind, the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs issued (in November 2010) an
``Agency Checklist'' for Regulatory Impact Analysis,
designed to promote clarity and transparency with
respect to the anticipated effects of regulation (see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
inforeg/regpol/RIA--Checklist.pdf). The checklist
emphasizes that agencies must assess costs and benefits
(to the extent feasible), explore alternatives, and
demonstrate the need for regulatory action. In these
ways, we have been seeking to increase openness and
improve our regulatory practices.
The second function of open government is very
different: Openness promotes not merely accountability,
but also access to widely dispersed information. The
central idea is that officials often lack information
that is held by numerous others, especially in the
private sphere. When it is working well, open
government can ensure that rules are properly informed
by such information, which will often help to increase
benefits, reduce costs, or identify new and creative
alternatives.
Consider the rulemaking process itself. A large
advantage of notice-and-comment rulemaking is that it
allows agencies to offer proposals, and supporting
analyses, that are subject to public scrutiny, and that
can benefit from knowledge that is widely dispersed in
society. On numerous occasions in the last 21 months,
final rules have been significantly different from
proposed rules, and public comments are a key reason.
In its 2010 Report on the Benefits and Costs of Federal
Regulations, OMB specifically noted that ``some
regulations have significant adverse effects on small
business'' and that ``it is appropriate to take steps
to create flexibility in the event that those adverse
effects cannot be justified by commensurate benefits.''
To tap dispersed knowledge, OMB requested public
suggestions about regulatory changes that might serve
to promote economic growth, with particular reference
to increasing employment, innovation, and
competitiveness. More specifically, OMB sought
suggestions for regulatory reforms that have
significant net benefits, that might increase exports,
and that might promote growth, innovation, and
competitiveness for small business, perhaps through
increasing flexibility. We continue to seek such
suggestions in an effort to reduce the risk that
regulation will impose unjustified costs or contain
unjustified rigidity--and to square important
regulatory goals with the interest in economic
recovery.
Finally, in emphasizing the value of providing access
to information that people ``can readily find and
use,'' the President signaled a distinctive idea--that
openness promotes learning by making data and evidence
accessible. Anecdotes, speculation, and guesswork can
be replaced with information and evidence. The point
bears directly on the role of regulatory impact
analysis. Such analysis is something that members of
the public can ``find and use,'' not least because
advance notice promotes predictability and avoids
unfair surprise.
[[Page 79458]]
In its Memorandum of July 23, 2010, on the Regulatory
Plan and Unified Agenda, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs noted:
``Executive Order 12866 identifies a number of
principles that you should keep in mind, to the extent
permitted by law, as you set priorities and prepare
your submissions.
First, Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to
propose or adopt a regulation `only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify the costs' (recognizing that some
benefits are difficult to quantify but are nonetheless
essential to consider, such as visibility in national
parks).
Second, it requires each agency to `tailor its
regulations to impose the least burden on society . . .
taking into account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations.'
Third, it requires agencies to `identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including
providing economic incentives to encourage the desired
behavior, such as the public.'
Fourth, it directs agencies to design regulations `in
the most cost-effective manner to achieve the
regulatory objective.'
Fifth, it asks each agency to `avoid regulations that
are inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its
other regulations or those of other Federal agencies.'
Sixth, it directs agencies to `select those approaches
that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and
other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity),
unless a statute requires another regulatory
approach.'''
OIRA asked agencies to ``comply with these requirements
as you develop your submissions.'' It also asked
agencies, among other things, to ``highlight
rulemakings that simplify or streamline regulations and
reduce or eliminate unjustified burdens'' and to
identify ``regulations that are of particular concern
to small businesses.'' Before they can be finalized,
the regulations on the plans that follow will, of
course, be subject to a rigorous process of assessment
and scrutiny, with careful attention to the foregoing
principles. The list of regulations is intended to
provide a public account of regulations that are under
consideration; agencies are under no obligation to
issue these regulations (unless some independent source
of law requires them to do so).
In the current economic environment, it is especially
important to see that analysis and openness are
mutually reinforcing. If the two are taken together,
they can help to promote important social goals, to
eliminate unjustified costs, and to identify approaches
that will promote entrepreneurship, innovation, job
growth, and competitiveness.
[[Page 79459]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Wholesale Pork Reporting Program 0581-AD07 Proposed Rule
Stage
2 National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Dairy Import Assessments, DA-08-0050 0581-AC87 Final Rule Stage
3 Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds 0579-AC02 Proposed Rule
Stage
4 Plant Pest Regulations; Update of General Provisions 0579-AC98 Proposed Rule
Stage
5 Importation of Live Dogs 0579-AD23 Proposed Rule
Stage
6 Animal Disease Traceability 0579-AD24 Proposed Rule
Stage
7 Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not 0579-AC03 Final Rule Stage
Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis
8 Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Reinvention 0575-AC13 Final Rule Stage
9 Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act 0580-AB07 Final Rule Stage
10 Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation, and 0584-AD87 Proposed Rule
Energy Act of 2008 Stage
11 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Farm Bill of 2008 Retailer Sanctions 0584-AD88 Proposed Rule
Stage
12 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 0584-AD96 Proposed Rule
Stage
13 Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity 0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
14 Direct Certification of Children in Food Stamp Households and Certification of Homeless, Migrant, 0584-AD60 Final Rule Stage
and Runaway Children for Free Meals in the NSLP, SBP, and SMP
15 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC 0584-AD77 Final Rule Stage
Food Packages
16 Egg Products Inspection Regulations 0583-AC58 Proposed Rule
Stage
17 New Poultry Slaughter Inspection 0583-AD32 Proposed Rule
Stage
18 Mandatory Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products 0583-AD36 Proposed Rule
Stage
19 Electronic Imported Product Inspection Applications; Electronic Foreign Imported Product and 0583-AD39 Proposed Rule
Foreign Establishment Certifications; Deletion of Streamlined Inspection Procedures for Canadian Stage
Product
20 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
21 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
22 Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products 0583-AC60 Final Rule Stage
23 Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements for Inspected Establishments 0583-AD34 Final Rule Stage
24 Federal-State Interstate Shipment Cooperative Inspection Program 0583-AD37 Final Rule Stage
25 Value-Added Producer Grant Program 0570-AA79 Final Rule Stage
26 Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees 0572-AC06 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Designation of Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale 0648-AY54 Proposed Rule
Stage
28 Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 0648-AV51 Final Rule Stage
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources
[[Page 79460]]
29 Critical Habitat Designation for Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Under the Endangered Species Act 0648-AX50 Final Rule Stage
30 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl 0648-AY68 Final Rule Stage
Rationalization Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 Voluntary Education Programs 0790-AI50 Final Rule Stage
32 TRICARE; Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals 0720-AB41 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended 1840-AD05 Proposed Rule
Stage
34 Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--Measures 1840-AD06 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 Energy Efficiency Standards for Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners 1904-AA89 Proposed Rule
Stage
36 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 1904-AB47 Proposed Rule
Stage
37 Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 1904-AB50 Proposed Rule
Stage
38 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces 1904-AC06 Proposed Rule
Stage
39 Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing 1904-AC11 Proposed Rule
Stage
40 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 1904-AB79 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information 0991-AB57 Final Rule Stage
Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act
42 Transparency Reporting 0950-AA07 Proposed Rule
Stage
43 Rate Review 0950-AA03 Final Rule Stage
44 Uniform Explanation of Benefits, Coverage Facts, and Standardized Definitions 0950-AA08 Final Rule Stage
45 Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics 0910-AC52 Proposed Rule
Stage
46 Unique Device Identification 0910-AG31 Proposed Rule
Stage
47 Cigarette Warning Label Statements 0910-AG41 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79461]]
48 Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling for Food Sold in Vending Machines 0910-AG56 Proposed Rule
Stage
49 Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Chain Restaurants 0910-AG57 Proposed Rule
Stage
50 Infant Formula: Current Good Manufacturing Practices; Quality Control Procedures; Notification 0910-AF27 Final Rule Stage
Requirements; Records and Reports; and Quality Factors
51 Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements 0910-AF86 Final Rule Stage
52 Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices 0910-AF88 Final Rule Stage
53 Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Notification of Facility Closure (CMS-3230-IFC) 0938-AQ09 Proposed Rule
Stage
54 Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations (CMS-1345-P) 0938-AQ22 Proposed Rule
Stage
55 Proposed Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and 0938-AQ24 Proposed Rule
FY 2012 Rates and to the Long-Term Care Hospital PPS and RY 2012 Rates (CMS-1518-P) Stage
56 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Part B for CY 2012 (CMS-1524-P) 0938-AQ25 Proposed Rule
Stage
57 Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center 0938-AQ26 Proposed Rule
Payment System for CY 2012 (CMS-1525-P) Stage
58 Civil Money Penalties for Nursing Homes (CMS-2435-F) 0938-AQ02 Final Rule Stage
59 Designation Renewal of Head Start Grantees 0970-AC44 Proposed Rule
Stage
60 Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Enrollment and Eligibility Rules Under the 0985-AA07 Proposed Rule
Affordable Care Act Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program 1601-AA52 Proposed Rule
Stage
62 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)
63 Asylum and Withholding Definitions 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule
Stage
64 Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject 1615-AB71 Proposed Rule
to Numerical Limitations Stage
65 Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected Status, and 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule
Withholding of Removal Stage
66 New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for T 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage
Nonimmigrant Status
67 Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage
68 New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the ``U'' Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage
69 E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands With Long- 1615-AB75 Final Rule Stage
Term Investor Status
70 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Worker Classification 1615-AB76 Final Rule Stage
71 Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 1615-AB77 Final Rule Stage
72 Outer Continental Shelf Activities 1625-AA18 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79462]]
73 Inspection of Towing Vessels 1625-AB06 Proposed Rule
Stage
74 Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations 1625-AB32 Proposed Rule
Issued by the Coast Guard Stage
75 Updates to Maritime Security 1625-AB38 Proposed Rule
Stage
76 Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters 1625-AA32 Final Rule Stage
77 Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements 1651-AA70 Final Rule Stage
78 Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage
(ESTA) Program
79 Establishment of Global Entry Program 1651-AA73 Final Rule Stage
80 Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program 1651-AA77 Final Rule Stage
81 Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator 1652-AA53 Proposed Rule
Security Program Stage
82 Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule
Stage
83 Freight Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA57 Proposed Rule
Stage
84 Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA59 Proposed Rule
Stage
85 Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage
86 Air Cargo Screening 1652-AA64 Final Rule Stage
87 Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 1653-AA60 Proposed Rule
Stage
88 Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 1653-AA13 Final Rule Stage
89 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
90 Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations 1660-AA51 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 Title I Energy Retrofit Property Improvement Loans (FR-5445) 2502-AI93 Proposed Rule
Stage
92 Housing Counseling: New Program Requirements (FR-5446) 2502-AI94 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93 National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape 1105-AB34 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94 Construction Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements 1250-AA01 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79463]]
95 Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA 1245-AA03 Proposed Rule
Stage
96 Right To Know Under the Fair Labor Standards Act 1235-AA04 Proposed Rule
Stage
97 Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than 1205-AB58 Proposed Rule
Agriculture or Registered Nursing in the United States (H-2B Workers) Stage
98 Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment of Regulations 1205-AB59 Proposed Rule
Stage
99 Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans 1210-AB33 Prerule Stage
100 Definition of ``Fiduciary'' 1210-AB32 Proposed Rule
Stage
101 Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard 1219-AB36 Proposed Rule
Stage
102 Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors 1219-AB64 Proposed Rule
Stage
103 Safety and Health Management Programs for Mines 1219-AB71 Proposed Rule
Stage
104 Pattern of Violations 1219-AB73 Proposed Rule
Stage
105 Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines 1219-AB76 Proposed Rule
Stage
106 Proximity Detection Systems for Underground Mines 1219-AB65 Final Rule Stage
107 Infectious Diseases 1218-AC46 Prerule Stage
108 Injury and Illness Prevention Program 1218-AC48 Prerule Stage
109 Backing Operations 1218-AC52 Prerule Stage
110 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 1218-AB70 Proposed Rule
Stage
111 Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements--Modernizing OSHA's Reporting 1218-AC49 Proposed Rule
System Stage
112 Hazard Communication 1218-AC20 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections--Part 2 2105-AD92 Final Rule Stage
114 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 2120-AJ00 Proposed Rule
Stage
115 Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations; Safety Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments 2120-AJ53 Proposed Rule
Stage
116 Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements 2120-AJ58 Final Rule Stage
117 Carrier Safety Fitness Determination 2126-AB11 Proposed Rule
Stage
118 Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents 2126-AB20 Proposed Rule
Stage
119 Hours of Service 2126-AB26 Proposed Rule
Stage
120 Drivers of Commercial Vehicles: Restricting the Use of Cellular Phones 2126-AB29 Proposed Rule
Stage
121 National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 2126-AA97 Final Rule Stage
122 Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards MYs 2017 and Beyond 2127-AK79 Prerule Stage
123 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors 2127-AK43 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79464]]
124 Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Highway Vehicles and Work Truck Fuel Efficiency Standards 2127-AK74 Proposed Rule
Stage
125 Ejection Mitigation 2127-AK23 Final Rule Stage
126 Hours of Service: Passenger Train Employees 2130-AC15 Proposed Rule
Stage
127 Major Capital Investment Projects 2132-AB02 Proposed Rule
Stage
128 Hazardous Materials: Limiting the Use of Mobile Telephones by Highway 2137-AE65 Proposed Rule
Stage
129 Hazardous Materials: Limiting the Use of Electronic Devices by Highway 2137-AE63 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide 2060-AI43 Proposed Rule
Stage
131 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 2060-AO47 Proposed Rule
Stage
132 Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of 2060-AO72 Proposed Rule
Sulfur Stage
133 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 2060-AP52 Proposed Rule
Steam Generating Units Stage
134 Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles 2060-AP61 Proposed Rule
Stage
135 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 2060-AQ44 Proposed Rule
Stage
136 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 2020-AA47 Proposed Rule
Stage
137 Regulations To Facilitate Compliance With the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 2070-AJ32 Proposed Rule
by Producers of Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) Stage
138 Mercury; Regulation of Use in Certain Products 2070-AJ46 Proposed Rule
Stage
139 Nanoscale Materials; Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) 2070-AJ54 Proposed Rule
Stage
140 Nanoscale Materials; Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 2070-AJ67 Proposed Rule
Stage
141 Revisions to EPA's Rule on Protections for Subjects in Human Research Involving Pesticides 2070-AJ76 Proposed Rule
Stage
142 Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide 2050-AG60 Proposed Rule
(CO2) Injectate in Geological Sequestration Activities Stage
143 Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the 2050-AG61 Proposed Rule
Hard Rock Mining Industry Stage
144 NPDES Permit Requirements for Municipal Sanitary and Combined Sewer Collection Systems, Municipal 2040-AD02 Proposed Rule
Satellite Collection Systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, and Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facilities Stage
145 Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures 2040-AE95 Proposed Rule
Stage
146 Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges From Developed Sites 2040-AF13 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79465]]
147 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulations for New Dischargers and 2040-AF17 Proposed Rule
the Appropriate Use of Offsets With Regard to Water Quality Permitting Stage
148 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Information Collection Request Rule 2040-AF22 Proposed Rule
Stage
149 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 2060-AM44 Final Rule Stage
and Institutional Boilers
150 Transport Rule (CAIR Replacement Rule) 2060-AP50 Final Rule Stage
151 Revision to Pb Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements 2060-AP77 Final Rule Stage
152 Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AP98 Final Rule Stage
153 Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 2060-AQ09 Final Rule Stage
154 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 2060-AQ25 Final Rule Stage
and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
155 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 2070-AJ57 Final Rule Stage
156 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wastes 2050-AG44 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158 Office of Government Information Services 3095-AB62 Proposed Rule
Stage
159 Declassification of National Security Information 3095-AB64 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 Small Business Jobs Act: Multiple Award Contracts and Small Business Set-Asides 3245-AG20 Proposed Rule
Stage
161 Small Business Size Regulations; (8)a Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status 3245-AF53 Final Rule Stage
Determination
162 Small Business Jobs Act: 504 Loan Program Debt Refinancing 3245-AG17 Final Rule Stage
163 Small Business Jobs Act: Small Business Intermediary Lending Pilot Program 3245-AG18 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders (859P) 0960-AF58 Proposed Rule
Stage
165 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974P) 0960-AF88 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 79466]]
166 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Endocrine System Disorders (436P) 0960-AD78 Final Rule Stage
167 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P) 0960-AF69 Final Rule Stage
168 Reestablishing Uniform National Disability Adjudication Provisions (3502F) 0960-AG80 Final Rule Stage
169 Amendments to Regulations Regarding Major Life-Changing Events Affecting Income-Related Monthly 0960-AH06 Final Rule Stage
Adjustments Amounts to Medicare Part B Premiums (3574F)
170 Amendments to Regulations Regarding Withdrawals of Applications and Voluntary Suspension of 0960-AH07 Final Rule Stage
Benefits (3573I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
171 Testing, Certification, and Labeling of Certain Consumer Products 3041-AC71 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 Tribal Background Investigation Submission Requirements and Timing 3141-AA15 Proposed Rule
Stage
173 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 Periodic Reporting Exceptions 3211-AA06 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-30473 Filed 12-17-10;8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S
[[Page 79467]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in the coming year will be focused on
achieving the Department's goals identified in the Department's
Strategic Plan for 2010 to 2015. To assist the country in addressing
today's challenges, USDA established the following goals:
Assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are
self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically thriving.
USDA is the leading advocate for rural America. The
Department supports rural communities and enhances quality
of life for rural residents by improving their economic
opportunities, community infrastructure, environmental
health, and the sustainability of agricultural production.
The common goal is to help create thriving rural
communities where people want to live and raise families,
and where children have economic opportunities and a bright
future.
Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe,
nutritious, and balanced meals. A plentiful supply of safe
and nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every
family and the healthy development of every child in
America. USDA provides nutrition assistance to children and
low-income people who need it and works to improve the
healthy eating habits of all Americans, especially
children. In addition, the Department safeguards the
quality and wholesomeness of meat, poultry, and egg
products and addresses and prevents loss and damage from
pests and disease outbreaks.
Ensure our national forests and private working lands are
conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate
change, while enhancing our water resources. America's
prosperity is inextricably linked to the health of our
lands and natural resources. Forests, farms, ranches, and
grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits as a
source of clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife
habitat. These lands generate economic value by supporting
the vital agriculture and forestry sectors, attracting
tourism and recreation visitors, sustaining green jobs, and
producing ecosystem services, food, fiber, timber and non-
timber products, and energy. They are also of immense
social importance, enhancing rural quality of life,
sustaining scenic and culturally important landscapes, and
providing opportunities to engage in outdoor activity and
reconnect with the land.
Help America promote agricultural production and biotechnology
exports as America works to increase food security. A
productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing
global food security. For many crops, a substantial portion
of domestic production is bound for overseas markets. USDA
helps American farmers and ranchers use efficient,
sustainable production, biotechnology, and other emergent
technologies to enhance food security around the world and
find export markets for their products.
Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of these
goals in 2011 will include the following:
Rural Development and Renewable Energy. USDA priority
regulatory actions for the Rural Development mission will
be to finalize regulations for bioenergy programs,
including the Biorefinery Assistance Program. While USDA
utilized notices of funding availability to implement many
of these programs in fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
regulations are required for permanent implementation.
Access to affordable broadband to all rural Americans is
another priority. USDA will finalize reform of its on-going
broadband access program through an interim rule. Rural
Development will utilize comments received from the
proposed rule, address statutory changes required by the
2008 Farm Bill, and incorporate lessons learned from
implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
program to develop the interim rule.
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. 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.
Nutrition Assistance. As changes are made to the nutrition
assistance programs, USDA will work to foster actions that
expand access to program benefits, improve program
integrity, improve diets and healthy eating through
nutrition education, and promote physical activity
consistent with the national effort to reduce obesity. In
support of these activities in 2011, the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) will propose a rule updating nutrition
standards in the school meals program, finalize a rule
updating the WIC food packages, and establish permanent
rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. FNS will
continue to work to implement rules that minimize
participant and vendor fraud in its nutrition assistance
programs.
Food Safety. In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to
develop science-based regulations that improve the safety
of meat, poultry, and processed egg products in the least
burdensome and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will
be revised to address emerging food safety challenges,
streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive regulations,
and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and
critical control point principles. FSIS will propose
regulations to establish new systems for poultry slaughter
inspection, catfish inspection, as well as a new voluntary
Federal-State cooperative inspection program. 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.
Farm Loans and Disaster Assistance. USDA will work to ensure a
strong U.S. agricultural system through farm income support
and farm loan programs. In addition, USDA will implement a
new disaster assistance program authorized by the 2008 Farm
Bill, the Emergency Forest Restoration Program. Regulations
are also being developed for conservation loan programs
intended to help producers finance the construction of
conservation measures.
Forestry and Conservation. USDA has completed all rulemaking
for the new and reauthorized 2008 Farm Bill conservation
programs and will focus on their continued implementation
in 2011. In the forestry area, the Department will focus on
developing a new planning rule that improves the National
forests' planning process, decisionmaking, and the legal
defensibility of land management plans. In 2011, the
Department plans to complete the transition from the
[[Page 79468]]
2000 planning rule that is now in effect to the new
planning rule that will update planning procedures to
reflect contemporary collaborative planning practices.
Marketing and Regulatory Programs. USDA will work to support
the organic sector and continue regulatory work to protect
the health and value of U.S. agricultural and natural
resources. USDA will also implement regulations to enhance
enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. In addition,
USDA is working with stakeholders to develop acceptable
animal disease traceability standards. Regarding plant
health, USDA anticipates revising the permitting of plant
pests and biological control organisms. USDA will also
amend regulations for importing nursery stock to better
address plant health risks associated with propagative
material. For the Animal Welfare Act, USDA will propose
specific standards for the humane care of birds and dogs
imported for resale. USDA will also implement regulations
to implement dairy promotion and research provisions of the
2008 Farm Bill.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA continues to make 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 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 USDA
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary
of their mission and key regulatory priorities in 2011:
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'
2011 regulatory plan supports USDA's goal to ensure that all of
America's children have access to safe, nutritious, and balanced meals:
Increase Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents
FNS' 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 publish a proposed rule to codify provisions of
the 2008 Farm Bill that expand access to Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and address
other 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 Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors.This
objective represents FNS' efforts to improve the diets of
its clients through nutrition education, support the
national effort to reduce obesity by promoting healthy
eating and physical activity, 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 a rule updating the
nutrition standards in the school meals programs, finalize
a rule updating the WIC food packages, 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.
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
regulatory actions support the objective to protect public health by
ensuring that food is safe under USDA's goal to ensure access to safe
food. To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses and increase program
efficiencies, FSIS will continue to review its existing authorities and
regulations to ensure that it can address emerging food safety
challenges, to streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, and to
revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the FSIS'
hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) regulations. FSIS is
also working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to improve
coordination and increase the effectiveness of inspection activities.
FSIS' priority initiatives are as follows:
Rulemakings that support initiatives of the President's Food
Safety Working Group:
- Poultry Slaughter Inspection. FSIS plans to amend poultry products
inspection regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment
sorts the carcasses for defects and FSIS verifies that the system is under
control and producing safe and wholesome product. FSIS will 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.
- 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.
FSIS will be proposing pathogen reduction performance standards for egg
products and will remove prescriptive requirements for egg product plants.
Initiatives that provide for disclosure or that enable
economic growth. FSIS plans to issue two final rules to
promote disclosure of information to the public or that
provide flexibility for the adoption of new technologies
and that promote economic growth:
- Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or
[[Page 79469]]
Chopped Meat and Poultry Products. Regulations have been proposed to
require nutrition information on the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw
meat and poultry products to appear on the product label or at the point of
purchase, unless an exemption applies. These regulations would also require
nutrition labeling on all ground or chopped meat or poultry products unless
an exemption applies.
- Permission to Use Air Inflation of Meat Carcasses and Parts. FSIS has
proposed to revise the Federal meat inspection regulations to permit
establishments that slaughter livestock or prepare livestock carcasses and
parts to inflate carcasses and parts with air if they develop, implement,
and maintain written controls to ensure that the procedure does not cause
insanitary conditions or adulterate product. In addition, FSIS has proposed
to amend its regulations to remove the approved methods for inflating
livestock carcasses and parts by air and the requirement that
establishments seek approval from FSIS for inflation procedures not listed
in the regulations.
Interstate Shipment of State-Inspected Meat and Poultry
Products. As authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, FSIS will
issue final 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.
Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements
for Inspected Establishments. As authorized by the 2008
Farm Bill, FSIS will issue final regulations that will
require establishments that are subject to inspection to
promptly notify FSIS when an adulterated or misbranded
product received by or originating from the establishment
has entered into commerce. The regulations also will
require the establishments to prepare and maintain current
procedures for the recall of all products produced and
shipped by the establishments and to document each
reassessment of the establishments' process control plans.
Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to
implement provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill provisions that
make catfish an amenable species under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA).
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 FSIS' current systems and
automate many business processes. To facilitate the
implementation of some PHIS components, FSIS is proposing
to provide for electronic export and import application and
certification processes as alternatives to the current
paper-based systems for these certifications.
Other planned initiatives. 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. Some provisions
of the proposal addressed 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. FSIS has carefully reviewed its economic
analysis of the interim final rule and is planning to
affirm the interim rule as a final rule with changes.
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.
FSIS collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and
operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their
facilities. FSIS employees meet with small and very small plant
operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide joint
training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS employees.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS regulatory actions
support USDA's goal of ensuring access to safe, plentiful, and
nutritious food by minimizing major diseases and pests that have the
potential for reducing agricultural productivity. In support of this
goal, 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 working with State
and tribal representatives to identify a regulatory approach that will
provide national traceability standards for livestock moved interstate
while allowing each State and tribe the flexibility to work with their
producers to develop standards that will work best for them. In the
area of animal welfare, APHIS plans to propose standards for the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds covered under
the Animal Welfare Act and to establish regulations to ensure the
humane treatment of dogs imported into the United States for resale.
Regarding plant health, APHIS anticipates publishing a proposed rule
that would revise the current regulations governing the permitting of
plant pests and biological control organisms. APHIS is also preparing a
final rule that will conclude the first phase of its comprehensive
revision to its regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for
planting) to better address plant health risks associated with
propagative material.
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
[[Page 79470]]
also manages the government's food purchases, supervises food quality
grading, maintains food quality standards, and supervises the Federal
research and promotion programs. AMS programs contribute to the
achievement of a number of objectives under the Department's goal to
assist rural communities to create prosperity and the goal to ensure
that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious, and
balanced meals.
Priorities:
National Organic Program (NOP). AMS' priority items for the
next year include several rulemakings that impact the
organic industry. Statistics indicating rapid growth in the
organic sector have highlighted issues that need to be
addressed, including:
- Origin of Livestock. On October 24, 2008, NOP published a proposed rule
with request for comments on the access to pasture requirements for
ruminants. This proposed rule included a change in the origin of livestock
requirements for dairy animals under section 205.236 of the NOP
regulations. Many of the comments received on the October 2008 proposed
rule suggested that the origin of livestock issue should be pursued through
a separate rulemaking from access to pasture. As a result, the proposed
change to the origin of livestock requirements was not retained in the
final rule on access to pasture published on February 17, 2010. AMS plans
to develop a proposed rule specific to origin of livestock under the NOP
during fiscal year (FY) 2011.
- Periodic Pesticide Residue Testing. The Organic Foods Production Act
(OFPA) of 1990 included language requiring certifying agents to conduct
periodic residue testing of organic products produced or handled in
accordance with the NOP. This requirement was meant to identify organic
products that contained pesticides or other nonorganic residues in
violation with the NOP or other applicable laws. In March 2010, an Office
of Inspector General (OIG) audit of the NOP suggested that a legal review
by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the current NOP regulations was
needed to assess whether the existing regulations are in compliance with
the residue testing requirement under OFPA. As a result of the legal
opinion received by the NOP on this issue, AMS will publish a proposed rule
on new periodic pesticide residue testing requirements in 2011.
- Streamlining Enforcement Related Actions. The March 2010 Office of
Inspector General (OIG) audit of the NOP raised issues related to the
program's process for imposing enforcement actions. One concern was that
organic producers and handlers facing revocation or suspension of their
certification are able to market their products as organic during what can
be a lengthy appeals process. As a result, AMS will publish a proposed rule
in 2011 to streamline the NOP appeals process such that appeals are
reviewed and responded to in a timely manner.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import
Assessments). AMS has entered the final stage of
establishing the National Dairy Promotion and Research
Program. 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. The
final rule is expected to be published by the end of 2010.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) 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.GIPSA's activities contribute significantly to the
Department's goal to increase prosperity in rural areas by supporting a
competitive agricultural system.
Priorities: GIPSA intends to issue a final 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
relating to livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being
finalized 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 equitably serve
all farmers, ranchers, and agricultural partners through the delivery
of effective, efficient agricultural programs, which contributes to two
USDA goals. The goal of assisting rural communities in creating
prosperity so they are self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically
thriving; and the goal to enhance the Nation's natural resource base by
assisting owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve and
enhance soil, water, and related natural resources. It supports the
first goal by stabilizing farm income, providing credit to new or
existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily unable to obtain
credit from commercial sources, and helping farm operations recover
from the effects of disaster. FSA supports the second goal by
administering several conservation programs directed toward
agricultural producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), which protects nearly 32 million acres of
environmentally sensitive land.
Priorities:
Disaster Assistance. Regulations will be issued to establish a
new disaster assistance program, the Emergency Forest
Restoration Program. This program requires new regulations
and minor revisions to the existing related Emergency
Conservation Program regulations.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Final regulations were
published to complete implementation of the Biomass Crop
Assistance Program. This program supports the
Administration's energy initiative to accelerate the
investment in and production of biofuels. The program will
provide financial assistance to
[[Page 79471]]
agricultural and forest land owners and operators 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. FSA will develop and issue regulations to
amend programs for farm operating loans, down payment
loans, and emergency loans to include socially
disadvantaged farmers, increase loan limits, loan size,
funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers
to commercial credit. In addition, the regulations will
establish a new direct and guaranteed loan program to
assist farmers in implementing conservation practices.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and rangelands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes
protecting and managing National Forest System lands, providing
technical and financial assistance to States, communities, and private
forest landowners, and developing and providing scientific and
technical assistance and scientific exchanges in support of
international forest and range conservation. Forest Service regulatory
priorities support the accomplishment of the Department's goal to
ensure our National forests are conserved, restored, and made more
resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.
Priorities:
Land Management Planning Rule. The Forest Service is required
to issue rulemaking for National Forest System land
management planning under 16 U.S.C. 1604. The first
planning rule was adopted in 1979 and amended in 1982. The
Forest Service published a new planning rule on April 21,
2008 (73 FR 21468). On June 30, 2009, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California
invalidated the Forest Service's 2008 Planning Rule
published at 36 CFR 219 based on violations of NEPA and ESA
in the rulemaking process. The District Court vacated the
2008 rule, enjoined the USDA from further implementing it,
and remanded it to the USDA for further proceedings. USDA
has determined that the 2000 planning rule is now in
effect, including its transition provisions as amended in
2002 and 2003, and as clarified by interpretative rules
issued in 2001 and 2004, which allows the use of the
provisions of the 1982 planning rule to amend or revise
plans. The Forest Service is now in the 2000 planning rule
transition period. The Forest Service is proposing a new
planning rule. In so doing, the Forest Service plans to
correct deficiencies that have been identified over two
decades of forest planning and update planning procedures
to reflect contemporary collaborative planning practices.
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program. The
purpose of the Community Forest Program is to achieve
community benefits through financial assistance grants to
local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit
organizations to establish community forests by acquiring
and protecting private forestlands. Community forest
benefits are specified in the authorizing statute and
include economic benefits from sustainable forest
management, natural resource conservation, forest-based
educational programs, model forest stewardship activities,
and recreational opportunities.
Closure of NFS Lands to Protect Privacy of Tribal Activities.
There is currently no provision for a special closure of
NFS lands to protect the privacy of tribal activities for
traditional and cultural purposes. The Forest Service will
amend its regulations to allow special closure of NFS land
to protect the privacy of tribal activities for traditional
and cultural purposes.
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 Programs 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: In support of the Department's goal to increase the
prosperity of rural communities, RBS regulatory priorities will
facilitate sustainable renewable energy development and enhance the
opportunities necessary for rural families to thrive economically.
RBS's priority will be to publish regulations to fully implement the
2008 Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for the
Biorefinery Assistance Program (sec. 9003), the Repowering Assistance
Program (sec. 9004), the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (sec.
9005), and the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP). RBS
has been administering sections 9003, 9004, and 9005 through the use of
Notices of Funds Availability and Notices of Contract Proposals.
Revisions to the Rural Energy for America Program (sec. 9007) 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 initiatives and various
technical changes throughout the rule. In addition, revisions to the
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be made to implement
2008 Farm Bill provisions and other program initiatives. These rules
will minimize program complexity and burden on the public while
enhancing program delivery and RBS oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: The mission of the Rural Utilities Service is 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
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and these industries, results in
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' regulatory priorities will be to achieve the
President's goal to bring affordable broadband to all rural Americans.
To accomplish this, RUS will continue to improve the Broadband Program
established by the 2002 Farm
[[Page 79472]]
Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill authorized RUS to approve loans and loan
guarantees for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition
of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural
communities. The 2008 Farm Bill is significantly changing the statutory
requirements of the Broadband Loan Program. As such, RUS will be
issuing an interim rule to implement the statutory changes and will
request comments on the section of the rule that was not part of the
proposed rule that was published in May 2007. In addition, the
regulations will be issued to implement provisions of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act that expanded RUS's authority to make
loans and provided new authority to make grants to facilitate broadband
deployment in rural areas.
Departmental Management
Mission: Departmental Management's mission is to provide management
leadership to ensure that 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 support of the Department's goal to increase rural
prosperity, USDA's Departmental Management will finalize regulations
establishing a program allowing manufacturers and vendors of eligible
products made from biobased feedstocks 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 is 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
2011, the Department's focus will be to implement the changes to
programs in such a way as to provide benefits while minimizing program
complexity and regulatory burden for program participants.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
1. WHOLESALE PORK REPORTING PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 1635 to 1636
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 59
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, March 28, 2012.
With the passage of S. 3656, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010,
the Secretary of Agriculture is required to amend chapter 3 of subtitle
B of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by adding a new section for
mandatory reporting of wholesale pork cuts. To make these amendments,
the Secretary was directed to promulgate a final rule no later than one
and a half years after the date of the enactment of the Act.
Accordingly, a final rule will be promulgated by March 28, 2012.
Abstract:
On September 15, 2010, Congress passed the Mandatory Price Reporting
Act of 2010 reauthorizing Livestock Mandatory Reporting for 5 years and
adding a provision for mandatory reporting of wholesale pork cuts. The
Act was signed by the President on September 28, 2010. Congress
directed the Secretary to engage in negotiated rulemaking to make
required regulatory changes for mandatory wholesale pork reporting.
Further, Congress required that the negotiated rulemaking committee
include representatives from (i) organizations representing swine
producers; (ii) organizations representing packers of pork, processors
of pork, retailers of pork, and buyers of wholesale pork; (iii) the
Department of Agriculture; and (iv) among interested parties that
participate in swine or pork production.
Statement of Need:
Implementation of mandatory pork reporting is required by Congress.
Congress delegated responsibility to the Secretary for determining what
information is necessary and appropriate. The Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234) directed the Secretary to conduct
a study to determine advantages, drawbacks, and potential
implementation issues associated with adopting mandatory wholesale pork
reporting. The report from this study generally concluded that
voluntary wholesale pork price reporting is thin and becoming thinner,
and some degree of support for moving to mandatory price reporting
exists at every segment of the industry interviewed. The report was
delivered to Congress on March 25, 2010.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Livestock Mandatory Reporting is authorized under the Agricultural
Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1635 to 1636). The Livestock and Seed Program
of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day-to-day responsibility
for collecting and disseminating LMR data.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based
on the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Estimation of costs will follow the previous methodology used in
earlier Livestock Mandatory Reporting rulemaking. The focus of the cost
estimation is the burden placed on reporting companies in providing
pork marketing data to the Livestock and Seed Program. Previous
rulemaking cost estimates of boxed beef reporting of similar data found
the burden to be an annual total of 65 hours in additional reporting
requirements per firm. Because no official USDA grade standards are
used in the marketing of pork, and fewer cutting styles, the burden for
pork reporting firms in comparison with beef reporting firms could be
lower. However, the impact is not truly known at this stage.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 79473]]
Agency Contact:
Warren Preston
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6231
Fax: 202 690-3732
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AD07
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; DAIRY IMPORT
ASSESSMENTS, DA-08-0050
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 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 to 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
[[Page 79474]]
NPRM Comment Period End 06/18/09
Final Action 03/00/11
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 and to revise the
regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2 to make them applicable to birds.
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 08/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 11/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Johanna Briscoe
Veterinary Medical Officer and Avian Specialist, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0658
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
4. PLANT PEST REGULATIONS; UPDATE OF GENERAL PROVISIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 2260; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 7 USC
8301 to 8817; 19 USC 136; 21 USC 111; 21 USC 114a; 21 USC 136 and 136a;
31 USC 9701; 42 USC 4331 to 4332
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 318 to 319; 7 CFR 330; 7 CFR 352
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
We are proposing to revise our regulations regarding the movement of
plant pests. We are proposing to regulate the movement of not only
plant pests, but also biological control organisms and associated
articles. We are proposing risk-based criteria regarding the movement
of biological control organisms, and are proposing to exempt certain
types of plant pests from permitting requirements for their interstate
movement and movement for environmental release. We are also proposing
to revise our regulations regarding the movement of soil, and to
establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which
plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are
held. This proposed rule replaces a previously published proposed rule,
which we are withdrawing as part of this document. This proposal would
clarify the factors that would be considered when assessing the risks
associated with the movement of certain organisms, facilitate the
movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that also
protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current regulations.
Statement of Need:
APHIS is preparing a proposed rule to revise its regulations regarding
the movement of plant pests. The revised regulations would address the
importation and interstate movement of plant pests, biological control
organisms, and associated articles and the release into the environment
of biological control organisms. The revision would also address the
movement of soil and establish regulations governing the biocontainment
facilities in which
[[Page 79475]]
plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are
held. This proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered
when assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain
organisms, facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles
in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in
the current regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under section 411(a) of the Plant Protection Act (PPA), no person shall
import, enter, export, or move in interstate commerce any plant pest,
unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is authorized
under a general or specific permit and in accordance with such
regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may issue to prevent the
introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination
of plant pests within the United States.
Under section 412 of the PPA, the Secretary may restrict the
importation or movement in interstate commerce of biological control
organisms by requiring the organisms to be accompanied by a permit
authorizing such movement and by subjecting the organisms to quarantine
conditions or other remedial measures deemed necessary to prevent the
spread of plant pests or noxious weeds. That same section of the PPA
also gives the Secretary explicit authority to regulate the movement of
associated articles.
Alternatives:
The alternatives we considered were taking no action at this time or
implementing a comprehensive risk reduction plan. This latter
alternative would be characterized as a broad risk mitigation strategy
that could involve various options such as increased inspection,
regulations specific to a certain organism or group of related
organisms, or extensive biocontainment requirements.
We decided against the first alternative because leaving the
regulations unchanged would not address the needs identified
immediately above. We decided against the latter alternative, because
available scientific information, personnel, and resources suggest that
it would be impracticable at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Undetermined at this time.
Risks:
Unless we issue such a proposal, the regulations will not provide a
clear protocol for obtaining permits that authorize the movement and
environmental release of biological control organisms. This, in turn,
could impede research to explore biological control options for various
plant pests and noxious weeds known to exist within the United States,
and could indirectly lead to the further dissemination of such pests
and weeds.
Moreover, unless we revise the soil regulations, certain provisions in
the regulations will not adequately address the risk to plants, plant
parts, and plant products within the United States that such soil might
present.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent to
Prepare an
Environmental Impact
Statement 10/20/09 74 FR 53673
Notice Comment Period End 11/19/09
NPRM 01/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State, Tribal
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:
Shirley Wager-Page
Chief, Pest Permitting Branch, Plant Health Programs, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 131
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-8453
RIN: 0579-AC98
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
5. IMPORTATION OF LIVE DOGS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2148
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 1 and 2
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to
regulate dogs imported for resale as required by a recent amendment to
the AWA. Importation of dogs for resale would be prohibited unless the
dogs are in good health, have all necessary vaccinations, and are 6
months of age or older. This proposal will also reflect the exemptions
provided in the amendment to the AWA for dogs imported for research
purposes or veterinary treatment and for dogs legally imported into the
State of Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New
Zealand.
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 mandates that the
Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations to implement and
enforce new provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding the
importation of dogs for resale. In line with the changes to the AWA,
APHIS intends to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2 to
regulate the importation of dogs for resale.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, signed
into law on June 18, 2008) added a new section to the Animal Welfare
Act (7 U.S.C. 2147) to restrict the importation of live dogs for
resale. As amended, the AWA now prohibits the importation of dogs into
the United States for resale unless the Secretary of Agriculture
determines that the dogs are in good health, have received all
necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of age. Exceptions
are provided for dogs imported for research purposes or veterinary
treatment. An exception to the 6-month age requirement is also provided
for dogs that are lawfully imported into Hawaii for resale purposes
from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand in compliance
with the applicable regulations of Hawaii, provided the dogs are
vaccinated, are in good health, and are not transported out of Hawaii
for resale purposes at less than 6 months of age.
[[Page 79476]]
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
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-AD23
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
6. ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 8305
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 90
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish a new part in the Code of Federal
Regulations containing general identification and documentation
requirements for livestock moving interstate. The purpose of the new
regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event
that disease is found. The regulations will provide national
traceability standards for livestock moved interstate and allow each
State and tribe the flexibility to develop ways of meeting the
standards that will work best for them.
Statement of Need:
Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of
protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers and farmers work
hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, there is never a
guarantee that their animals will be spared from disease. To support
their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to prevent, control, and
eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and domestic confidence in
the safety of animals and animal products. Traceability helps give that
reassurance. Traceability does not prevent disease, but knowing where
diseased and at-risk animals are, where they have been, and when, is
indispensable in emergency response and in ongoing disease programs.
The primary objectives of these proposed regulations are to improve our
ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found and to
provide national standards to ensure the smooth flow of livestock in
interstate commerce, while also allowing States and tribes the
flexibility to develop systems for tracing animals within their State
and tribal lands that work best for them.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the
Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the interstate
movement of any animal to prevent the introduction or dissemination of
any pest or disease of livestock, and may carry out operations and
measures to detect, control, or eradicate any pest or disease of
livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the Act.
Alternatives:
As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal health, APHIS
initiated implementation of the National Animal Identification System
(NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency launched an effort to assess
the level of acceptance of NAIS through meetings with the Secretary,
listening sessions in 14 cities, and public comments. Although there
was some support for NAIS, the vast majority of participants were
highly critical of the program and of USDA's implementation efforts.
The feedback revealed that NAIS has become a barrier to achieving
meaningful animal disease traceability in the United States in
partnership with America's producers.
The option we are proposing pertains strictly to interstate movement
and gives States and tribes the flexibility to identify and implement
the traceability approaches that work best for them.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
A workable and effective animal traceability system would enhance
animal health programs, leading to more secure market access and other
societal gains. Traceability can reduce the cost of disease outbreaks,
minimizing losses to producers and industries by enabling current and
previous locations of potentially exposed animals to be readily
identified. Trade benefits can include increased competitiveness in
global markets generally, and when outbreaks do occur, the mitigation
of export market losses through regionalization. Markets benefit
through more efficient and timely epidemiological investigation of
animal health issues. Other societal benefits include improved animal
welfare during natural disasters.
Costs of an animal traceability system would include those for tags and
tagging and would vary, depending on the method of identification
chosen (e.g., metal tags vs. microchip implants). Costs are expected to
vary by both type of operation and whether traceability would be by
individual animal or by lot or group. Per head costs of traceability
programs for the principal farm animals are estimated to be highest for
cattle operations, followed by sheep, swine, and poultry operations.
Larger operations would likely reap economies of scale, that is, incur
lower costs per head than smaller operations. However, there will be
exemptions for small producers who raise animals to feed themselves,
their families, and their immediate neighbors. In addition, only
operations moving livestock interstate would be required to comply with
the regulations.
Risks:
This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal health risks
posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning identification of
livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of a comprehensive
animal traceability program is impairing our ability to trace animals
that may be affected with disease.
[[Page 79477]]
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
State, Tribal
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Neil Hammerschmidt
NAIS Coordinator, Surveillance and Identification Programs, NCAHP, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 200
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-5571
RIN: 0579-AD24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
7. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING PEST RISK
ANALYSIS (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 rulemaking will amend the regulations to establish a new category
of regulated articles in the regulations governing the importation of
nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. This category will
list taxa of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized
pending pest risk analysis. If scientific evidence indicates that a
taxon of plants for planting is a quarantine pest or a host of a
quarantine pest, we will publish a notice that will announce our
determination that the taxon is a quarantine pest or a host of a
quarantine pest, cite the scientific evidence we considered in making
this determination, and give the public an opportunity to comment on
our determination. If we receive no comments that change our
determination, the taxon will subsequently be added to the new
category. We will allow any person to petition for a pest risk analysis
to be conducted for a taxon that has been added to the new category.
After the pest risk analysis is completed, we will remove the taxon
from the category and allow its importation subject to general
requirements, allow its importation subject to specific restrictions,
or prohibit its importation. We will consider applications for permits
to import small quantities of germplasm from taxa whose importation is
not authorized pending pest risk analysis, for experimental or
scientific purposes under controlled conditions. This new category will
allow us to take prompt action on evidence that the importation of a
taxon of plants for planting poses a risk while continuing to allow for
public participation in the process.
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' 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 12/00/10
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.
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
[[Page 79478]]
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Plant Pathologist, Risk Management and Plants for Planting
Policy, RPM, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-0627
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Housing Service (RHS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
8. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING (MFH) REINVENTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301; 42 USC 1490a; 7 USC 1989; 42 USC 1475; 42 USC 1479; 42 USC
1480; 42 USC 1481; 42 USC 1484; 42 USC 1485; 42 USC 1486
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1806; 7 CFR 1822; 7 CFR 1902; 7 CFR 1925; 7 CFR 1930; 7 CFR 1940;
7 CFR 1942; 7 CFR 1944; 7 CFR 1951; 7 CFR 1955; 7 CFR 1956; 7 CFR 1965;
7 CFR 3560; 7 CFR 3565
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Rural Housing Service has consolidated and streamlined the
regulations pertaining to section 515 Rural Rental Housing, section 514
Farm Labor Housing Loans, section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants, and
section 521 Rental Assistance Payments. Fourteen published regulations
have been reduced to one regulation and handbooks for program
administration. This will simplify loan origination and portfolio
management for applicants, borrowers, and housing operators, as well as
Rural Development field staff. This also provides flexibility for
program modifications to reflect current and foreseeable changes. The
consolidated regulations save time and simplify costs. Finally, the
regulation is more customer friendly and responsive to the needs of the
public.
Statement of Need:
The new regulation for the program known as the Multi-Family Housing
Loan and Grant Programs will be more user-friendly for lenders,
borrowers, and Agency staff. These changes are essential to allow for
improved service to the public and for an expanded program with
increased impact on rural housing opportunities without a corresponding
expansion in Agency staff. The regulations will be shorter, better
organized, and more simple and clear. Many documentation requirements
will be eliminated or consolidated into more convenient formats.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The existing statutory authority for the MFH programs was established
in title V of the Housing Act of 1949, which gave authority to the RHS
(then the Farmers Home Administration) to make housing loans to
farmers. As a result of this Act, the Agency established single-family
and multi-family housing programs. Over time, the sections of the
Housing Act of 1949 addressing MFH have been amended a number of times.
Amendments have involved issues such as the provision of interest
credit, broadening definitions of eligible areas and populations to be
served, participation of limited profit entities, the establishment of
a rental assistance program, and the imposition of a number of
restrictive use provisions and prepayment restrictions.
Alternatives:
To not publish the rule would substantially restrict RHS' ability to
effectively administer the programs and cost the Agency significant
credibility with the public and oversight organizations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Based on analysis of the proposed rule, the following impacts may
occur, some of which could be considered significant:
There would be cost savings due to reduced paperwork, estimated to be
about $1.8 million annually for the public and about $10.1 million for
the Government.
Risks:
Without the streamlining, there will be a decrease in the ability of
the Agency to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing to program
beneficiaries.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/02/03 68 FR 32872
NPRM Comment Period End 08/01/03
Interim Final Rule 11/26/04 69 FR 69032
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 12/27/04
Interim Final Rule
Effective 02/22/05 70 FR 8503
Final Action 10/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Laurence Anderson
MFH Preservation and Direct Loans
Department of Agriculture
Rural Housing Service
STOP 0781
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-1611
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0575-AC24
RIN: 0575-AC13
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
9. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
Priority:
Other Significant
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 and 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
[[Page 79479]]
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) (Pub. 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
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 section 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
[[Page 79480]]
efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 3) competitive efficiency.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/22/10 75 FR 35338
NPRM Comment Period End 08/23/10
Final Action 03/00/11
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--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
10. 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 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 (Pub. L.
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
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 SNAP to
implement provisions from the 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. 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 (Pub. L. 110-246).
Alternatives:
Because this proposed rule is under development, alternatives are not
yet articulated. The rule would implement statutory requirements set
forth by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 concerning SNAP
eligibility and certification rules.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FNS is currently developing estimates of the anticipated costs and
benefits of this rule. Anticipated principle effects would be on
paperwork burdens.
Risks:
The statutory changes and discretionary ones under consideration would
streamline program operations. The changes are expected to reduce the
risk of inefficient operations.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/11
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
11. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL OF 2008
RETAILER SANCTIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
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
[[Page 79481]]
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 6 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 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 (Pub. L. 110-
246).
Alternatives:
Because this proposed rule is under development alternatives are not
yet articulated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Because this proposed rule is under development anticipated costs and
benefits have not yet been articulated.
Risks:
The risk that retail or wholesale food stores will violate SNAP rules,
or continue to violate SNAP rules, is expected to be reduced by
refining program sanctions for participating retailers and wholesalers.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/11
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
12. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; National School Lunch Act
(NSLA); 42 USC 1769(a)
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 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.
[[Page 79482]]
In addition, the proposed rule would establish oversight activity and
reporting and recordkeeping 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 is under development, alternatives are not
yet articulated. The 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 02/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 04/00/11
Final Action 08/00/11
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-AD96
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
13. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM
INTEGRITY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1766; PL 103-448; PL 104-193; PL 105-336
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 226
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State
and Federal program reviews and from audits and investigations
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule revises: State
agency criteria for approving and renewing institution applications;
program training and other operating requirements for child care
institutions and facilities; and State and institution-level monitoring
requirements. This rule also includes changes that are required by the
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
The changes are designed to improve program operations and monitoring
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline
and simplify program requirements for State agencies and institutions
(95-024).
Statement of Need:
In recent years, State and Federal program reviews have found numerous
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and, in some instances, fraud by child
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed
weaknesses in management controls over program operations and examples
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of
program funds for non-program expenditures; and improper meal
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to mis-characterized 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, the 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:
This proposed interim final rule is under development and alternatives
are not yet articulated. FNS is working with State agencies to identify
reasonable alternatives to implement the changes mandated by law. FNS
will be developing extensive guidance materials in conjunction with
agency
[[Page 79483]]
cooperators to meet the objectives of the statute.
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:
With the interim final rule in place and operational, risk of integrity
problems is reduced. The final rule will use comments from stakeholders
to further improve the 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 02/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
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
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.
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 02/00/11
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 05/00/11
Final Action 10/00/11
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
[[Page 79484]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
15. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND
CHILDREN (WIC): REVISIONS IN THE WIC FOOD PACKAGES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1786
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 246
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 2006.
CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) requires
issuance of a final rule within 18 months of release of IOM Report.
Abstract:
This final rule will affirm and address comments from stakeholders on
the interim final rule that went into effect October 1, 2009, and for
which the comment period ended February 1, 2010. Significant changes to
the rule are not anticipated. The rule amended regulations governing
the WIC food packages to align them more closely with updated nutrition
science and the infant feeding practice guidelines of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, promote and support more effectively the
establishment of successful long-term breastfeeding, provide WIC
participants with a wider variety of food, and provide WIC State
agencies with greater flexibility in prescribing food packages to
accommodate participants with cultural food preferences. The final rule
considers public comments submitted on the impacts of the changes and
how they might be refined to assist State agencies and recipients.
Statement of Need:
As the population served by WIC has grown and become more diverse over
the past 20 years, the nutritional risks faced by participants have
changed, and though nutrition science has advanced, the WIC
supplemental food packages have remained largely unchanged. A rule is
needed to implement recommended changes to the WIC food packages based
on the current nutritional needs of WIC participants and advances in
nutrition science.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on
June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue a final rule within 18
months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's report on revisions to
the WIC food packages. This report was published and released to the
public on April 27, 2005.
Alternatives:
FNS developed a regulatory impact analysis that addressed a variety of
alternatives that were considered in the interim final rulemaking. The
regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix to the interim
rule. FNS developed a regulatory impact analysis that addressed a
variety of alternatives that were considered in the interim final
rulemaking. That regulatory impact analysis was published as an
appendix to the interim rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The regulatory impact analysis for this rule provided a reasonable
estimate of the anticipated effects of the rule. This analysis
estimated that the provisions of the rule would have a minimal impact
on the costs of overall operations of the WIC Program over 5 years. The
regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix to the interim
rule.
Risks:
This rule applies to WIC State agencies with respect to their selection
of foods to be included on their food lists. As a result, vendors will
be indirectly affected and the food industry will realize increased
sales of some foods and decreases in other foods, with an overall
neutral effect on sales nationally. The rule may have an indirect
economic affect on certain small businesses because they may have to
carry a larger variety of certain foods to be eligible for
authorization as a WIC vendor. With the high degree of State
flexibility allowable under this final rule, small vendors will be
impacted differently in each State depending upon how that State
chooses to meet the new requirements. It is, therefore, not feasible to
accurately estimate the rule's impact on small vendors. Since neither
FNS nor the State agencies regulate food producers under the WIC
Program, it is not known how many small entities within that industry
may be indirectly affected by the rule. FNS has, however, modified the
new food provision in an effort to mitigate the impact on small
entities. This rule adds new food items, such as fruits and vegetables
and whole grain breads, which may require some WIC vendors,
particularly smaller stores, to expand the types and quantities of food
items stocked in order to maintain their WIC authorization. In
addition, vendors also have to make available more than one food type
from each WIC food category, except for the categories of peanut butter
and eggs, which may be a change for some vendors. To mitigate the
impact of the fruit and vegetable requirement, the rule allows canned,
frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables to be substituted for fresh
produce. Opportunities for training on and discussion of the revised
WIC food packages will be offered to State agencies and other entities
as necessary.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/07/06 71 FR 44784
NPRM Comment Period End 11/06/06
Interim Final Rule 12/06/07 72 FR 68966
Interim Final Rule
Effective 02/04/08
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 02/01/10
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
URL For Public Comments:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
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-AD77
[[Page 79485]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
16. 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 (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
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 product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to export
egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S. system. FSIS
will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when this proposal
becomes effective.
This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal
would be the approximately 80 federally inspected egg products plants,
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business
Administration criteria. If necessary, FSIS will develop compliance
guides to assist these small firms in implementing the proposed
requirements.
Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include:
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.
Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of
foodborne illness.
The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are
approximately $7 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the
proposed action are approximately $90 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
[[Page 79486]]
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 Salmonella
Enteritidis 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 09/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
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-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
17. 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
[[Page 79487]]
control based on risk factors at each establishment.
Risks:
Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial portion of
poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne Salmonella cause a large
number of human illnesses that at times lead to hospitalization and
even death. There is an apparent relationship between human illness and
prevalence levels for salmonella in young chicken carcasses. FSIS
believes that through better allocation of inspection resources and the
use of performance standards, it would be able to reduce the prevalence
of salmonella and other pathogens in young chickens.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
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
18. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
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 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, section 11016
Alternatives:
The option of no rulemaking is unavailable. The Agency has considered
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 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Quita Bowman Blackwell
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Catfish Inspection Program
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5735
Fax: 202 690-1742
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
19. ELECTRONIC IMPORTED PRODUCT INSPECTION APPLICATIONS; ELECTRONIC
FOREIGN IMPORTED PRODUCT AND FOREIGN ESTABLISHMENT CERTIFICATIONS;
DELETION OF STREAMLINED INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR CANADIAN PRODUCT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 USC 601 to 695), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 USC 451 to 470); Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 USC 1031 to 1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2 and 327.4; 9 CFR 381.196 to 381.198; 9 CFR
590.915 and 590.920
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing to amend the meat, poultry, and egg products import
inspection regulations to provide for an electronic application, and
electronic imported product and foreign establishment certification
system. FSIS
[[Page 79488]]
is also proposing to delete the ``streamlined'' import inspection
procedures for Canadian product. In addition, the Agency is proposing
that official import inspection establishment must develop, implement,
and maintain written Sanitation SOPs, as provided in 9 CFR 416.11
through 416.17.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide for the electronic
import system, which will be available through the Agency's Public
Health Information System (PHIS), a computerized, Web-based inspection
information system. The import system will enable applicants to
electronically submit and track import inspection applications that are
required for all commercial entries of FSIS regulated products imported
in to the U.S. FSIS inspection program personnel will be able to access
the PHIS system to assign appropriate imported product inspection
activities. The electronic import system will also facilitate the
foreign imported product and annual foreign establishment
certifications by providing immediate and direct electronic government-
to-government exchange of information. The Agency is proposing to
delete the Canadian streamlined import inspection procedures because
they have not been in use since 1990 and are obsolete. Sanitation SOPs
are written procedures establishments develop, implement, and maintain
to prevent direct contamination or adulteration of meat or poultry
products. To ensure that imported meat and poultry products do not
become contaminated while undergoing reinspection prior to entering the
U.S., FSIS is proposing to clarify that official import inspection
establishments must develop written Sanitation SOPs.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authorities for this proposed rule are: 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), Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)(21
U.S.C. 1031 to 1056) and the regulations that implement these Acts.
Alternatives:
The use of the electronic import system is voluntary. The Agency will
continue to accept and process paper import inspection applications,
and foreign establishment and foreign imported product certificates.
The Canadian streamlined import inspection procedures are not currently
in use. Proposing Sanitation SOPs in official import inspection
establishments will prevent direct contamination or adulteration of
product. Therefore, no alternatives were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Under this proposed rule, the industry will have the option of filing
inspection applications electronically and submitting electronic
foreign product and establishment certificates through the PHIS. Since
the electronic option is voluntary; applicants and the foreign
countries that choose to file electronically will do so only if the
benefits outweigh the cost. Sanitation (SOPs) are a condition of
approval for official import inspection establishments, and as a
requirement for official import inspection establishments to continue
to operate under Federal inspection. The proposed rule will clarify
that official import inspection establishments must have developed
written Sanitation SOPs before being granted approval and that existing
official import inspection establishments must meet Sanitation SOP
requirements. Since, in practice, FSIS has always expected official
import inspection establishments to maintain Sanitation SOPs during the
reinspection of imported products, the proposed amendment for these
sanitation requirements will have little, if any, cost impact on the
industry.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/10
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:
Mary Stanley
Director, International Policy Division Office of Policy and Program
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 2125
1400 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0287
RIN: 0583-AD39
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
20. 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 USC 601 to 695); Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 USC 451 to 470); Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 USC 1031 to 1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1 and 322.2; 9 CFR 350.7; 9 CFR 362.5; 9 CFR
381.104 to 381.106; 9 CFR 590.407; 9 CFR 592.20 and 592.500
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. FSIS is
proposing to charge users for the use of the proposed system. FSIS is
also proposing to provide establishments that export meat, poultry, and
egg products with flexibility in the official export inspection marks,
devices, and certificates. In addition, FSIS is proposing egg product
export regulations that parallel the meat and poultry export
regulations.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to facilitate the electronic
processing of export applications and certificates through the Public
Health Information System (PHIS), a computerized, Web-based inspection
information system. The current export application and
[[Page 79489]]
certification regulations provide only for a paper-based process. This
proposed rule will provide this electronic export system 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 to 695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056), and the regulations that implement these
Acts. FSIS is proposing to charge for the electronic export application
and certification system 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 export applications and certification system 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 is proposing to charge exporters that choose to utilize the system
$90.00 per application submitted. Automating the export application and
certification process will facilitate the exportation of U.S. meat,
poultry, and egg products by streamlining and automating the processes
that are in use while ensuring that foreign regulatory requirements are
met. The direct cost to exporters would be approximately $22.5 million
to $31.5 million per year, if they choose to file electronically.
However, the total cost to an exporter would depend on the number of
electronic applications processed. An exporter that processes only a
few applications per year would not be likely to experience a
significant economic impact. Under this proposal, inspection personnel
workload is reduced through the elimination of the physical handling
and processing of applications and certificates. When an electronic
government-to-government system interface or data exchange is used,
fraudulent transactions, such as false alterations and reproductions,
will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. The electronic export
system is designed to ensure authenticity, integrity, and
confidentiality. Exporters will be provided a more efficient and
effective application and certification process. The proposed egg
product export regulations provide the same export requirements across
all products regulated by FSIS and consistency in the export
application and certification process.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/10
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:
Dr. Ron Jones
Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3473
RIN: 0583-AD41
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
21. 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
[[Page 79490]]
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 percent. 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
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 03/00/11
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
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
22. NUTRITION LABELING OF SINGLE-INGREDIENT PRODUCTS AND GROUND OR
CHOPPED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to amend the Federal meat and poultry products
inspection regulations to require nutrition labeling for the major cuts
of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on their
label or at their point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies. FSIS
also proposed to require nutrition information on the label of ground
or chopped meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. The
requirements for ground or chopped products will be consistent with
those for multi-ingredient products.
FSIS also proposed to amend the nutrition labeling regulations to
provide that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the
regulatory criteria to be labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim
may be included on the label or in labeling, as long as a statement of
the fat percentage also is displayed on the label or in labeling.
Statement of Need:
The Agency will require that nutrition information be provided for the
major
[[Page 79491]]
cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on
their label or at their point of purchase, because during the most
recent surveys of retailer, the Agency did not find significant
participation in the voluntary nutrition labeling program for single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products. Ground or chopped products
are similar to multi-ingredient products. This rule is necessary so
that consumers can have the information they need to construct healthy
diets.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 to 470).
Alternatives:
No action; nutrition labels required on all single-ingredient, raw
products (major cuts and non-major cuts) and all ground or chopped
products; nutrition labels required on all major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products (but not non-major cuts) and all ground or
chopped products; nutrition information at the point of purchase
required for all single-ingredient, raw products (major and non-major
cuts) and for all ground or chopped products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Cost will include the equipment for making labels, labor, and materials
used for labels for ground or chopped products. The cost of providing
nutrition labeling for the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat
and poultry products should not be significant, because retail
establishments would have the option of providing nutrition information
through point-of-purchase materials.
Benefits of the nutrition labeling rule would result consumers modify
their diets in response to new nutrition information concerning ground
or chopped products and the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw
products. Reductions in consumption of fat and cholesterol are
associated with reduced incidence of cancer and coronary heart disease.
FSIS has concluded that the quantitative benefits will exceed the
quantitative costs of the supplemental proposed rule. FSIS estimates
that the annualized benefits of the proposed rule will range from
approximately $185.6 to $230.8 million, using a 7 percent discount rate
over 20 years. FSIS estimates that the annualized costs will range from
approximately $26.7 to $44.8 million, using a 7 percent discount rate
over 20 years.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/18/01 66 FR 4970
NPRM Comment Period End 04/18/01
Extension of Comment
Period 04/20/01 66 FR 20213
NPRM Comment Period End 07/17/01
Supplemental Proposed
Rule 12/18/09 74 FR 67736
Supplemental Proposed
Rule Comment Period
End 02/16/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins
Director, Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
5601 Sunnyside Avenue
Beltsville, MD 20705-5000
Phone: 301 504-0878
Fax: 301 504-0872
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
23. NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
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) has proposed 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 has also proposed 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 (Pub. L. 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 3.0
percent inflation rate for following years. Total approximate costs:
$10.2 million. The average cost of this final 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 determined 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
[[Page 79492]]
on benefits attributable to this final 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
considered any risks to public health or other pertinent risks
associated with these actions.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/25/10 75 FR 14361
NPRM Comment Period End 05/24/10
Final Action 09/00/11
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
24. FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246, sec 11015
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009.
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed 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) (Pub. L. 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 and 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 3 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
[[Page 79493]]
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 choose to participate. Very
small and certain small establishments State-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 12/16/09
Final Action 05/00/11
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)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
25. VALUE-ADDED PRODUCER GRANT PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1951, subpart E; 7 CFR 4284, subpart J
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Agency proposes to modify 7 CFR part 4284, subpart J, to include
the definitions for mid-tier value chain and value-added agricultural
product to include an agricultural commodity or product that is
aggregated and marketed as a locally produced agricultural food
product. Additionally, the proposed rule will expand the grant term not
to exceed 3 years; implement a simplified application process for
project proposals less than $50,000; provide for priority to projects
that increase opportunities for beginning farmers or ranchers, socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, and operators of small- and medium
sized farms and ranches that are structured as a family farm; and
implement a reservation of funds for projects to benefit beginning
farmers or ranchers, socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, and
mid-tier value chains.
The Agency is also proposing to amend 7 CFR part 1951, subpart E, to
allow the delegation of the servicing of the program to USDA State
Office personnel.
Statement of Need:
The modifications to the Value Added Producer Grant program will
streamline program regulations resulting in better quality
applications. It is expected that all of the changes will result in
time and resource savings to the applicant and the Agency. Publication
of the final rule is crucial to program implementation. The program
will directly create new businesses, assist with the expansion of
existing businesses, 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 program was authorized by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of
2000, section 231 (Pub. L. 106-224). The purpose of the Value Added
Producer Grant (VAPG) program is to help eligible independent producers
of agricultural commodities, agricultural producer groups, farmer and
rancher cooperatives, and majority-owned, producer-based business
ventures develop business plans for viable marketing opportunities and
develop strategies to create marketing opportunities.
Alternatives:
An alternative is to continue under the interim rule. The interim rule
is scheduled to be published and remain in effect until a final rule is
adopted. A notice announcing FY 2010 funding will be published after
the interim rule. FY 2010 funding will be expendable in FY 2011.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
The anticipated costs associated with this process are contract
services. An exact dollar amount cannot be determined at this time, but
it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more.
No change in FTE needs is anticipated.
Minimal automation changes are anticipated.
Benefits:
The intended action is to fine tune the program regulations, making
them easier to use for the public and Agency staff, while incorporate
changes designed to reduce the cost to the Government and the subsidy
rate.
Risks:
Program risks include risk of loss in the loans guaranteed under this
program. We anticipate mitigating these risks with improved regulatory
and administrative guidance and appropriate training.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/28/10 75 FR 29920
NPRM Comment Period End 06/28/10
Interim Final Rule 12/00/10
Interim Final Rule
Effective 01/00/11
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 02/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 79494]]
Agency Contact:
Jermolowicz Andrew
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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA79
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
26. RURAL BROADBAND ACCESS LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171; 7 USC 901 et seq
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1738
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The essential goal of
the Recovery Act is to provide a ``direct fiscal boost to help lift our
Nation from the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and lay the
foundation for future growth.'' The Recovery Act expanded Rural
Utilities Service's (RUS') 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 as authorized by The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171 (2002 Farm Bill).
There has been more than $1.7 billion in loans for broadband deployment
with more than 1,900 rural communities that will receive broadband
services. Even with this level of success, the program needs to be
adjusted to better serve unserved or underserved communities. In
response, the RUS, an agency of the United States Department of
Agriculture, revised the broadband rule to address this and other
critical issues, and further facilitate the deployment of broadband
service in rural America as directed by Congress by: (1) Clearly
defining served and underserved markets based on service availability
and existing competitors and target unserved in underserved areas; (2)
providing potential applicants with a clear definition of which
communities are eligible for funding; (3) establishing a minimum data
transmission rate that the facilities financed must be able to deliver
to the consumer; (4) establishing equity requirements that mitigate
risks; (5) modifying market survey requirements based on service
territories and existing availability of service; and (6) imposing new
time limits for build-out and deployment to ensure prudent use of loan
funds and timely delivery services to rural customers. A proposed rule
was published in May 2007 seeking comments from interested parties.
Subsequently, the rulemaking process was suspended in light of new
statutory requirements provided in the 2008 Farm Bill, thus requiring
further rulemaking activities.
Statement of Need:
Since the Broadband Loan Program's inception, the Agency has faced and
continues to face significant challenges in administering the program,
including the fierce competitive nature of the broadband market, the
fact that many companies proposing to offer broadband service are
start-up organizations with limited resources, continually evolving
technology, and economic factors such as the higher cost of serving
rural communities. Because of these challenges, the Agency has been
reviewing the characteristics of the Broadband Loan Program and has
determined that modifications are required to accelerate the deployment
of broadband service to the rural areas of the country.
The Broadband Loan Program is important to the revitalization of our
rural communities and their economies. A lack of private capital has
been cited as a reason for slow broadband deployment. However, an
adequate supply of investment capital alone may not be sufficient to
universally deploy broadband facilities in rural America--primarily due
to the high cost of deployment outside of more densely populated areas.
Due to market uncertainties and risks associated with startup ventures,
non-Federal sources of funding are restricting and raising the cost of
capital, particularly in costly rural markets. Better access to low-
cost capital is a primary initiative of this program in facilitating an
increase in the rate of rural broadband deployment.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-171 (``2002 Farm Bill''), was signed into law. Title VI
of the Farm Bill authorized the Agency to approve loans and loan
guarantees for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition
of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural
communities. On June 18, 2008, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (``2008 Farm Bill'') became law, significantly changing the
statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan Program. As such, the
Agency will be issuing a Interim Rule that implements the statutory
changes and requests comment on sections of the rule that were not part
of the Proposed Rule published in May 2007.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The program costs associated with lending activity are relatively low.
The average subsidy rate since the program's inception is 2.4 percent,
or $24,000 in appropriated budget authority for every $1 million in
loans. The residents and businesses of rural communities are the
beneficiaries. Rural Development is responsible for helping rural
America transition from an agricultural base economy to a platform for
new business and economic opportunity. Rural Development seeks to
leverage its financial resources with private investment to facilitate
the development of the changing rural economy. The Broadband Loan
Program provides rural America with the platform on which to achieve
these goals. With access to the same advanced telecommunications
networks as its urban counterparts, especially broadband networks
designed to accommodate distance learning, telework, and telemedicine,
rural America will eventually see improving educational opportunities,
health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher
employment. The Agency shares the assessment of Congress, State and
local officials, industry representatives, and rural residents that
broadband service is a critical component to the future of rural
America. The Agency is committed to ensuring that rural America will
have access to affordable, reliable, broadband
[[Page 79495]]
services, and to provide a healthy, safe and prosperous place to live
and work.
Risks:
Building broadband infrastructure in sparsely populated rural
communities is very capital intensive. The Broadband Loan Program
continues to face risk factors that pose challenges in ensuring that
proposed projects can and do deliver robust, affordable broadband
services to rural consumers. These factors include the competitive
nature of the broadband market, the fact that many companies proposing
to offer broadband service are start-up organizations with limited
resources, rapidly evolving technology, and economic factors such as
the higher cost of serving rural communities. While many of the
smallest rural communities understand the importance of broadband
infrastructure to their economic development, they often have
difficulty attracting service providers to their communities.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/11/07 72 FR 26742
NPRM Comment Period End 07/10/07
Interim Final Rule 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Michele L. Brooks
Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Room 5159 South Building
STOP 1522
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 690-1078
Fax: 202 720-8435
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0572-AC06
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S
[[Page 79496]]
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 doubled 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 79497]]
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 tools and
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 shareholders 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 allow for permitting 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
[[Page 79498]]
particular interest to international 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.
1. 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.
2. Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program--Program
Components Rulemaking (0648-AY68): Due to the complexity of
the fishery management measures, NMFS is implementing the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program
through multiple rulemakings. A previous rulemaking (i.e.,
the Initial Issuance rule) creates and issues quota shares
to qualified participants and establishes an appeals
process. The program components rulemaking would implement
the second phase of the trawl rationalization program. In
particular, this rulemaking includes requirements for
observers and compliance monitors, retention requirements,
coop permits and agreements, first receiver site licenses,
vessel accounts and mandatory economic data collection.
3. Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (0648-
AX50): This rule would designate critical habitat in two
areas of Cook Inlet totaling 3,016 square miles. Critical
habitat would include intertidal and subtidal waters near
high and medium flow anadromous fish streams. The deadline
for publication is October 20, 2010.
4. Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whales (0648-AY54):
Northern right whales have been listed as endangered since
1973. In 2008, NOAA removed Northern right whales from the
list of endangered species and replaced it with two
separate species (North Pacific and North Atlantic right
whales). NOAA had designated critical habitat for Northern
right whales but has not yet designated critical habitat
for the new North Atlantic right whale species. Several
environmental groups threaten litigation over the failure
to designate critical habitat for the species listed in
2008. NOAA is discussing a possible schedule for critical
habitat designation that would avoid litigation.
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) advances U.S. national
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and
strengthening an adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and
treaty compliance systems. BIS also administers programs to prioritize
certain contracts to promote the national defense and to protect and
enhance the defense industrial base.
In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency review
of the U.S. export control system with the goal of strengthening
national security and the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and
technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to
the changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the
President outlined an approach under which agencies that administer
export controls will apply new criteria for determining what items need
to be controlled and a common set of policies for determining when an
export license is required. The control list criteria are to be based
on transparent rules, which will reduce the uncertainty faced by our
Allies, U.S. industry, and its foreign partners, and will allow the
government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive items in
order to enhance national security.
Under the President's approach, agencies will apply the criteria and
revise the lists of munitions and dual use items that are controlled
for export so that they:
Are ``tiered'' to distinguish the types of items that should
be subject to stricter or more permissive levels of control
for different destinations, end-uses, and end-users;
Create a ``bright line'' between the two current control lists
to clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce
government and industry uncertainty about whether
particular items are subject to the control of the State
Department or the Commerce Department; and
Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be
combined into a single list of controlled items.
BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the
initial phase of the President's directive.
Major Programs and Activities
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also
regulate participation of U.S. persons in certain boycotts administered
by foreign governments. The National Defense Industrial Base
Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require
reporting of foreign government imposed offsets in defense sales, and
address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The
Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration,
reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector
necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under Chemical
Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations
implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the
United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with eight field offices in the
United States. BIS export control officers are stationed at several
U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S.
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to
promote effective export controls through cooperation with other
governments.
BIS' Regulatory Plan Actions
As the agency responsible for leading administration and enforcement of
the
[[Page 79499]]
U.S. dual-use export control system, BIS is playing a central role in
the Administration's efforts to fundamentally reform the export control
system. Changing what we control, how we control it and how we enforce
and manage our controls will help strengthen our national security by
focusing our efforts on controlling the most critical products and
technologies and by enhancing the competitiveness of key U.S.
manufacturing and technology sectors. In accordance with the
President's directive to develop a system that is tiered to distinguish
the types of items that should be subject to stricter or more
permissive levels of control for different destinations, end-uses, and
end-users, BIS is developing a rule to implement an Export Control Tier
Based License Exception. This rule would allow certain dual-use items
to be exported and reexported with conditions to specific countries
without a license that would otherwise be required.
BIS will also be developing other rules to implement additional aspects
of the export control reform as those aspects are identified and
decided.
International Trade Administration
The International Trade Administration (ITA) assists in the development
of U.S. trade policy in the global economy; creates jobs and economic
growth by promoting U.S. companies; strengthens American
competitiveness across all industries; addresses market access and
compliance issues; administers U.S. trade laws; and undertakes a range
of trade promotion and trade advocacy efforts.
Import Administration
The Import Administration (IA) is the ITA's lead unit on enforcing
trade laws and agreements to prevent unfairly traded imports and to
safeguard jobs and the competitive strength of American industry. From
working to resolve disputes to implementing measures when violations
are found, we are there to protect U.S. companies from unfair trade
practices.
The primary role of IA is to enforce effectively the U.S. unfair trade
laws (i.e., the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD)
laws) and to develop and implement other policies and programs aimed at
countering foreign unfair trade practices. IA also administers the
Foreign Trade Zones program, the Statutory Import Program and certain
sector-specific agreements and programs, such as the Textiles and
Apparel Program and the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis licensing
system.
AD proceedings focus on whether foreign producers/exporters are selling
their merchandise in the United States at less than fair value. CVD
proceedings focus on whether foreign producers/exporters are
benefitting from subsidies provided by their governments. Parties who
participate in AD/CVD proceedings include U.S. manufacturers, U.S.
importers, and foreign exporters and manufacturers, some of whom are
affiliated with U.S. companies.
ITA's Regulatory Plan Actions
IA is developing a rule entitled, ``Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective
Order Procedures'' to implement an electronic filing and records
management system called IA's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). The Department's
regulations currently require parties to submit multiple copies of a
public document, and additional copies if the document contains
business proprietary information. Alternatively, under the current
regulations, if a document contains business proprietary information, a
party must submit one hard copy original and five hard copies of a
business proprietary document and three copies of a public version. The
proposed rule will require interested parties to use IA ACCESS to file
submissions electronically, unless an exception for manual, hard copy
filing is applicable. If a document must be filed manually, the
proposed rule also reduces the required number of copies for manual
submissions such that only one paper copy of the submission will need
to be filed with the Department.
In addition to electronic filing, the goal of the IA ACCESS system is
to expand the public's access to information in AD/CVD proceedings by
making all publicly filed documents available on the internet. It will
also allow interested parties to file all submissions (both public and
business proprietary) with the Department using an internet connection.
The Department envisions that such a system will create efficiencies in
both the process and costs associated with filing and maintaining the
documents. The ease of document submission will increase accessibility
of submission to the Department by interested parties located within
and outside the Washington, DC area.
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board is an interagency board composed of
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Secretary of Commerce is the chairman of the Board. The FTZ Board
administers the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C.
section 81a et seq.) (FTZ Act).
Major Program and Activities
The FTZ Board administers the FTZ program of the United States,
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the FTZ regulations, codified at 15 CFR
part 400. FTZs are restricted-access sites in or near U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry licensed by the FTZ Board and
operated under the supervision of CBP. FTZs are locations into which
foreign and domestic merchandise may be moved for operations involving
storage, exhibition, assembly, manufacture, or other processing not
prohibited by law. FTZs are considered outside of U.S. customs
territory, which means that the usual customs entry procedures and
payment of duties are not required on foreign merchandise admitted into
an FTZ unless and until that merchandise enters U.S. customs territory
for domestic consumption.
The fact that FTZs are considered outside of U.S. customs territory
makes them a valuable resource for many businesses. An FTZ user can
avoid payment of U.S. customs duties on foreign merchandise admitted
into an FTZ and then re-exported after further processing or
manufacturing. Further, in some circumstances an FTZ user can admit
foreign merchandise into an FTZ for use in manufacturing, and then,
upon entry of the manufactured product into the U.S. customs territory,
pay customs duties at the rate for the manufactured product. This can
result in significant duty savings. Therefore, the FTZ program
encourages retention of employment in the United States and promotion
of export activity.
The FTZ Board reviews and approves applications for authority to
establish FTZs and to conduct certain activity within FTZs. It has the
authority to restrict or prohibit activity in FTZs. Under the FTZ Act,
FTZs must be operated under public utility principles and provide
uniform treatment to all that apply to use the FTZ. The FTZ Board
ensures that FTZs are operated in the public interest.
[[Page 79500]]
The FTZ Board's Regulatory Plan Actions
The FTZ Board is in the process of revising its regulations, which have
been in effect since 1990, in a proposed rule entitled, ``Foreign-Trade
Zones in the United States.'' The new proposed rule was sent to OMB for
review on August 31, 2010 (RIN 0625-AA81). The proposed rule will
streamline application procedures and improve access to FTZs. For
example, the FTZ Board is proposing to eliminate the need for advance
Board approval of many types of manufacturing operations. This will
allow businesses, including small businesses, to take advantage of
manufacturing opportunities in FTZs more quickly and more in keeping
with the pace of modern business, because they will not need to wait
through the sometimes lengthy application process. Further, the
proposed rule will provide guidance on the FTZ Act's requirements that
FTZs be operated as public utilities with uniform access to all users.
This aspect of the proposed rule will improve access to the job-
retention and export-promotion benefits of FTZs. The proposed rule also
will provide greater clarity on various other aspects of the FTZ
program, such as the FTZ Board's statutory fining authority.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
27. DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1361 et seq; 16 USC 1531 to 1543
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 226; 50 CFR 229
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In June 1970, the Northern right whale was listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the precursor to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)(35 FR 8495; codified at 50 CFR 17.11).
Subsequently, right whales were listed as endangered under the ESA in
1973, and as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) the
same year. In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Northern
right whale, a single species thought at the time to include right
whales in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
In 2006, NMFS published a comprehensive right whale status review that
concluded that recent genetic data provided unequivocal support to
distinguish three right whale lineages (including the southern right
whale) as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al. 2000).
Rosenbaum et al. (2000) concluded that the right whale should be
regarded as the following three separate species: (1) The North
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ranging in the North
Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica),
ranging in the North Pacific Ocean; and (3) the southern right whale
(Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the southern
hemisphere's oceans.
Based on these findings, NMFS published a proposed and final
determination listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North
Pacific as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704,
December 27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, March 6, 2008). Based on the new
listing determination, NMFS is required by the ESA to designate
critical habitat separately for both the North Atlantic right whale and
the North Pacific right whale.
In April 2008, a final critical habitat determination was published for
the North Pacific right whale (73 FR 19000; April 8, 2008). At this
time, NMFS is preparing a proposal to designate critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale.
Statement of Need:
In June 1970, the Northern right whale was listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the precursor to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)(35 FR 8495; codified at 50 CFR 17.11).
Subsequently, right whales were listed as endangered under the ESA in
1973 and as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) the
same year. In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Northern
right whale, a single species thought at the time to include right
whales in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
In 2006, NMFS published a comprehensive right whale status review that
concluded that recent genetic data provided unequivocal support to
distinguish three right whale lineages (including the southern right
whale) as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al. 2000).
Rosenbaum et al. (2000) concluded that the right whale should be
regarded as the following three separate species: (1) The North
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ranging in the North
Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica),
ranging in the North Pacific Ocean; and (3) the southern right whale
(Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the southern
hemisphere's oceans.
Based on these findings, NMFS published a proposed and final
determination listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North
Pacific as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704,
December 27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, March 6, 2008). Based on the new
listing determination, NMFS is required by the ESA to designate
critical habitat separately for both the North Atlantic right whale and
the North Pacific right whale.
In April 2008, a final critical habitat determination was published for
the North Pacific right whale (73 FR 19000; April 8, 2008). At this
time, NMFS is preparing a proposal to designate critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Endangered Species Act
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 assess costs and
benefits.
Risks:
Loss of critical habitat for a species listed as protected under the
ESA and MMPA, as well as potential loss of right whales due to habitat
loss.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
[[Page 79501]]
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Marta Nammack
Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-1401
Fax: 301 427-2523
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AY54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
28. CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED IN
ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED, AND UNREGULATED FISHING OR BYCATCH OF PROTECTED
LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq; 16 USC 1826(d) to 1826(k)
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 300
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 12, 2011, Report due to Congress 16 USC
1826h.
Report on countries identified as having vessels engaged in IUU
fishing.
Abstract:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is establishing a process
of identification and certification to address illegal, unreported, or
unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress, as
required under section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. NMFS would
subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate
corrective action with respect to the activities of its fishing
vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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 U.S.C. 1826j and k), as amended by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act.
Alternatives:
NMFS developed alternatives for the Secretary of Commerce to make a
positive certification that a nation, once identified as having vessels
engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing, has
taken sufficient corrective action against those vessels or is a member
of a regional fishery management organization that has adopted
effective measures to address the IUU activities. NMFS also developed
alternatives for the Secretary of Commerce to make a positive
certification that a nation, once identified as having vessels engaged
in bycatch of protected living marine resources (PLMR), has adopted a
regulatory program to conserve those PLMR that is comparable in
effectiveness to the United States and which collects data to support
international assessment and conservation efforts.
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 has not been determined to be economically significant under
E.O. 12866; however, it is considered significant because it raises
novel or legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's Priorities, and the principles set forth in the Executive
order.
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 33436
ANPRM Comment Period End 07/05/07
NPRM 01/14/09 74 FR 2019
NPRM Comment Period End 05/14/09
Final Action 12/00/10
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.
[[Page 79502]]
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
29. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR COOK INLET BELUGA WHALE UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1531 et seq
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 226
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Cook Inlet
beluga whale Distinct Population Segment as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act on October 17, 2009. NMFS is required to
designate critical habitat no later than one year after the publication
of a listing. NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule by October 17,
2009.
Statement of Need:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Cook Inlet
beluga whale Distinct Population Segment as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act on October 17, 2009. NMFS is required to
designate critical habitat no later than one year after the publication
of a listing. NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule by October 17,
2009.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Endangered Species Act
Alternatives:
Alternative 1. No action (status quo): NMFS would not designate
critical habitat (CH) in Cook Inlet, Alaska, for the Cook Inlet beluga
whale. Conservation and recovery of the listed species would depend
exclusively upon the protections provided under the ``jeopardy''
provisions of Section 7 of the ESA.
Alternative 2. Designate Area 1 and Area 2, which encompass all of
upper-Cook Inlet, north of a line at 60[deg] 25' north latitude, and
portions of mid- and lower-Cook Inlet, extending south along the west
side of the Cook Inlet, following the tidal flats into Kamishak Bay to
Douglas Reef, between MHHW and waters within two nautical miles of
shore. It further includes all waters of Kachemak Bay, eastward of
151[deg] 30' west longitude and seaward of MHHW.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The post-designation incremental costs are estimated to range from
$187,000 to $571,000, in present value terms, at a 3 percent discount
rate, and from $157,000 to $472,000 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Approximately six Federal action agencies for section 7 consultations
are anticipated to bear 70 percent ($398,000) of these costs, while 26
percent ($148,000) are expected to accrue to NMFS, as the consulting
agency. The remaining four percent ($25,000) of these costs may be
borne by third parties, during the consultations. Of the total costs to
Federal action agencies, the DOD is anticipated to bear approximately
76 percent ($302,000). This is followed by USACE (9 percent; $37,000),
NMFS (7 percent; $28,000), FERC (7 percent; $28,000), EPA (1 percent;
$3,000), and FHWA (less than 1 percent; less than $1,000).
Benefits are qualitative: Area more attractive to workers in various
industrial sectors; anticipated conservation and recovery species; and
the general stability in associated environs should provide increases
in welfare to tourists, recreationists, wildlife watchers, Cook Inlet
Ferry passengers, and future cruise ship passengers. This should result
in higher revenues for relevant businesses. Other wildlife and fish
species will benefit, resulting in overall improvements in commercial,
recreational, personal use, and subsistence uses. The increase in Cook
Inlet beluga whale populations, in the longer term, will provide more
frequent subsistence harvest opportunities to the Alaska Natives and
allow future generations to practice their traditional ways. It will
enhance passive-use benefits among those who value this species and the
myriad elements and aspects of the natural habitat that sustains it.
Finally, as the ESA is carried out, there are expected to be scientific
and educational benefits to the Nation.
Risks:
Loss of critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct
Population Segment and connected loss of Cook Inlet beluga whale
members.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 04/14/09 74 FR 17131
ANPRM Comment Period End 05/14/09
NPRM 12/02/09 74 FR 63080
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 01/12/10 75 FR 1582
NPRM Comment Period End 02/01/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Marta Nammack
Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-1401
Fax: 301 427-2523
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AX50
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
30. FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES; PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY;
AMENDMENTS 20 AND 21; TRAWL RATIONALIZATION PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 660
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The trawl rationalization program creates an individual fishing quota
[[Page 79503]]
(IFQ) program for the shore-based trawl fleet; and cooperative (coop)
programs for the at-sea trawl fleet in the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery. This rulemaking includes regulations to implement Amendments
20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). Amendment 20 creates the structure and management details of the
trawl rationalization program, which would be a limited access
privilege program (LAPP) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as reauthorized in 2007.
Amendment 21, intersector allocation, allocates the groundfish stocks
between trawl and non-trawl fisheries.
Statement of Need:
The trawl rationalization program is intended to increase net economic
benefits, create individual economic stability, provide full
utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider environmental
impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch and bycatch.
This rule would establish the key components that would be necessary to
implement the trawl rationalization program at the start of the 2011
fishery.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Alternatives:
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council) prepared two
environmental impact statement (EIS) documents: Amendment 20--
Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl
Fishery, which would create the structure and management details of the
trawl fishery rationalization program; and Amendment 21--Allocation of
Harvest Opportunity Between Sectors of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery, which would allocate the groundfish stocks between trawl and
non-trawl fisheries. These EISs covered a range of alternatives. The
Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(RIR/IRFA) for this rule focuses on the two key alternatives--the No-
Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. By focusing on the
two key alternatives (no action and preferred) in the RIR/IRFA, it
encompasses parts of the other alternatives and informs the reader of
these proposed regulations. Under the no action alternative, the
current, primary management tool used to control the Pacific coast
groundfish trawl catch includes a system of two month cumulative
landing limits for most species and season closures for Pacific
whiting. This management program would continue under the no action
alternative. The analysis of the preferred alternative describes what
is likely to occur as a result of the proposed action. Under the
preferred alternative, the existing shore-based whiting and shore-based
non-whiting sectors of the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry trawl
fishery would be managed as one sector under a system of IFQs, and the
at-sea whiting sectors of the fishery would be managed under a system
of sector-specific harvesting cooperatives (coops).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The RIR/IRFA reviewed and summarized the benefits and costs, and the
economic effects of the Council's recommendations. The major
conclusions of the economic model suggest that (with landings held at
2004 levels), the current groundfish fleet (non-whiting component),
which consisted of 117 vessels in 2004, will be reduced by roughly 50
percent to 66 percent, or 40 to 60 vessels under an IFQ program. The
reduction in fleet size implies cost savings of $18 to $22 million for
the year 2004 (most recent year of the data). Vessels that remain
active will, on average, be more cost efficient and will benefit from
economies of scale that are currently unexploited under controlled
access regulations in the fishery. The cost savings estimates are
significant, amounting to approximately half of the costs incurred
currently, suggesting that IFQ management may be an attractive option
for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. The increase in profits that
commercial harvesters are expected to experience under the preferred
alternative may render them better able to sustain the costs of
complying with the new reporting and monitoring requirements. The costs
of at-sea observers may reduce profits by about $2.2 million, depending
on the fee structure. However, the profits earned by the non-whiting
sector would still be substantially higher under the preferred
alternative than under the no action alternative.
Risks:
Under the no action alternative, cumulative landing limits for target
species have to be set lower because the bycatch of overfished species
cannot be directly controlled. Introducing accountability at the
individual vessel level by means of IFQs provides a strong incentive
for bycatch avoidance.
There will likely be a lower motivation to ``race for fish'' due to
coop harvest privileges. This is expected to result in improved product
quality, slower-paced harvest activity, increased yield (which should
increase ex-vessel prices), and enhanced flexibility and ability for
business planning.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Availability 05/12/10 75 FR 26702
First Proposed Rule 06/10/10 75 FR 32994
First Proposed Rule
Correction 06/30/10 75 FR 37744
First Proposed Rule
Comment Period End 07/12/10
Second Proposed Rule 08/31/10 75 FR 53379
Second Proposed Rule
Comment Period End 09/30/10
First Final Rule 10/01/10 75 FR 60868
Second Final Rule 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Barry Thom
Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Building 1, 7600 Sand Point Way NE.
Seattle, WA 48115-0070
Phone: 206 526-6150
Fax: 206 526-6426
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 0648-AX98
RIN: 0648-AY68
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S
[[Page 79504]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department
consisting of 3 Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 10
Unified Combatant Commands, 14 Defense agencies, and 10 DoD Field
Activities. It has 1,434,761 military personnel and 770,569 civilians
assigned as of June 30, 2010, 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, Treasury, Commerce, and State, and the Office of
Personnel Management, General Services Administration, and
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.
The Department also participates with GSA, NASA, and OFPP to form the
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. The FAR Council assists in the
direction and coordination of Government wide procurement policy and
Government wide procurement regulator activities in the Federal
Government (41 U.S.C. 421). Together, DOD, GSA, and NASA jointly issue
and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Administration Priorities:
1. Rulemakings that promote open Government and that use disclosure as
a regulatory tool.
The Department plans to:
Revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to inform
contractors of this statutory requirement to make Federal
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
information, excluding past performance reviews, available
to the public;
Finalize the FAR rule that implements the requirement for
reporting first-tier subcontracting data for new contracts
using Recovery Act funds; and
Finalize the FAR rule that implements the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which requires
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a
free, public, website containing full disclosure of all
Federal contract award information. This rule requires
contractors to report executive compensation and first-tier
subcontractor awards on unclassified contracts expected to
be $25,000 or more, except contracts with individuals.
2. Rulemakings that simplify or streamline regulations and reduce or
eliminate unjustified burdens.
The Department plans to:
Revise the FAR to delete part 2 of the SF 330, which collects
general qualifications data not related to a particular
planned contract action. The Online Representations and
Certifications Application (ORCA) now collects this data
centrally from interested Architect-Engineer vendors at the
time they complete the other representations and
certifications in ORCA;
Revise the FAR to incorporate changes from a final Department
of Labor rule that removes the requirement to submit
complete social security numbers and home addresses of
individual workers in weekly payroll submissions. Removal
of this personal information from payroll records avoids
unnecessary disclosure issues;
Finalize the revision of 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;
Remove the DFARS requirement to use DD Forms 2626 and 2631 to
report past performance information for construction and
architect/engineer services instead of the standard FAR
procedures;
Revise the DFARS to permit offerors to provide alternative
line-item structure from that shown in the solicitation to
reflect the offeror's business practices for selling and
billing commercial items and initial provisioning spares
for weapon systems;
Delete redundant DFARS text that limits placement of orders
against contracts with contractors that have been debarred
suspended or proposed for debarment. This requirement is
now incorporated into the FAR;
Propose changes to 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;
Establish a method in the DFARS for electronic issuance of
orders; and
Improve the contract closeout process.
3. Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
Of interest to small businesses are regulations to:
Implement in the FAR changes to the requirement for small
disadvantaged businesses certification;
Revise the FAR to implement changes in the HUBZone Program, in
accordance with Small Business Administration regulations;
[[Page 79505]]
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;
Establish a DoD program to enhance participation of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-
Serving Institutions in defense research programs;
Conform the DFARS to the FAR with respect to the use of the
Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System; and
Require public disclosure of justification and approval
documents for noncompetitive 8(a) contracts over $20
million.
4. Regulations with international effects or interest
Of international effect or interest are regulations to:
Implement in the FAR statutory certification requirement that
each offeror does not engage in any activity for which
sanctions may be imposed under section 5 of the Iran
Sanctions Act. Also implements a procurement prohibition
relating to contracts with persons that export sensitive
technology to Iran;
Establish in the FAR processes and criteria for waiver of the
prohibition on contracting with entities that conduct
restricted business operations in Sudan;
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 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;
Implement in the FAR and DFARS the annual consolidated
appropriation act exemption from the Buy American Act/
Balance of Payments Program restrictions on the acquisition
of foreign commercial information technology items as
construction material; and
Finalize in the FAR and DFARS the rules that increase trade
agreements thresholds, as specified by the United States
Trade Representative.
Specific DoD Priorities:
For this Regulatory Plan, there are seven 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, and health
affairs.
1. Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
In 1988, the Army Corps of Engineers published as appendix B of 33 CFR
part 325, a rule that governs compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Army's Regulatory Program. On
April 2, 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
announced that the Army Corps of Engineers would conduct rulemaking to
modify appendix B to reflect a limited change in policy addressing
permit applications for surface coal mining activities in Appalachia.
The modification of appendix B will focus on the NEPA scope of review
for considering the effects of surface coal mining in Appalachia on the
aquatic environment, to enhance protection of aquatic resources.
2. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues
to lead Government efforts to:
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;
Clarify DoD policy in the DFARS regarding the definition and
administration of contractor business systems to improve
the effectiveness of DCMA/DCAA oversight of contractor
business systems;
Implement in the DFARS statutory requirement to inspect
military facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for
safety and habitability prior to use;
Revise the FAR to implement the Executive orders relating to
allowability of labor relations costs, non-displacement of
qualified workers, notification of employee rights under
Federal labor laws, and Federal leadership in
environmental, energy, and economic performance;
Revise the FAR to adopt biobased procurement preferences and
collect contractor information on use of biobased products;
Revise the FAR to address service contractor employee personal
conflicts of interest and organizational conflicts of
interest and limit contractor access to information; and
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.
3. 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:
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 to 34694) with an effective
date of July 17, 2009. The comment period ended August 31,
2009. DoD, in coordination with the Department of State and
the United States Agency
[[Page 79506]]
for International Development, have prepared a final rule,
which includes the responses to the public comments, and
incorporates changes to the interim final rule, where
appropriate. The final rule is expected to be published the
first or second quarter of FY 2011.
Interim Final Rule: 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
interim final rule in the first or second quarter of FY
2011.
4. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published a rule to assist eligible military
and civilian Federal employee homeowners:
Final Rule: This rule authorizes 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 allows 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. DoD published an interim
final rule on September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50109-50115), with
an effective date of September 30, 2009. The comment period
ended October 30, 2009. The final rule published November
16, 2010 (75 FR 69871) with an effective date of January
18, 2011.
5. Military Personnel Policy, 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, Public Law 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 to
30220) with an effective date of June 25, 2009. The comment
period ended July 27, 2009. DoD anticipates finalizing this
rule in the spring of 2011.
6. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published or plans to publish a rule to
implement policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for
the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD.
Proposed Rule: This rule implements policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the
operation of voluntary education programs within DoD.
Included are: Procedures for Service members participating
in education programs; guidelines for establishing,
maintaining, and operating voluntary education programs;
procedures for obtaining on-base voluntary education
programs and services; minimum criteria for selecting
institutions to deliver higher education programs and
services on military installations; and the Memorandum of
Understanding between educational institutions and DoD
prior to the disbursement of tuition assistance funds. This
is an economically significant rule. The proposed rule
published August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47504-47515). The comment
period ends October 5, 2010. DoD anticipates finalizing
this rule in the spring or fall of FY 2011.
7. 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 provided an additional opportunity for comment on
the final rule of March 17, 2009, implementing provisions
of section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008. This statute extended pharmaceutical
Federal Ceiling Prices to TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Program
prescriptions. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a
final rule on March 17, 2009, implementing the law. On
November 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia ``ordered that the final rule is remanded
without vacatur for the Defense Department to consider in
its discretion whether to readopt the current iteration of
the rule or adopt another approach to implement 10 U.S.C.
1074g(f).'' As part of DoD's reconsideration, DoD solicited
public comments on the implementation of the statute, DoD's
resulting regulations, and the matters addressed for DoD's
consideration in the Court's Memorandum Opinion. The
proposed rule was published February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6335-
6336). The comment period ended on March 11, 2010. DoD
anticipates publishing a second final rule in the first
quarter of FY 2011.
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
[[Page 79507]]
(73 FR 16612). The comment period ended May 27, 2008. The
final rule published April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18051 to 18055)
with an effective date of June 18, 2010.
Proposed rule on TRICARE: Sole Community Hospital Payment
Reform. This rule implements the statutory provision in
section 1079(j)(2) of title 10, United States Code that
TRICARE payment methods for institutional care shall be
determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the
same reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to
providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This
proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology
similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for
services provided by sole community hospitals. DoD
anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the first or
second quarter of FY 2011.
Proposed rule on TRICARE: Long Term Care Hospital Prospective
Payment System. This rule adopts a reimbursement
methodology for Long Term Care Hospitals similar to
Medicare's Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment
System. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the
spring of FY 2011.
8. Networks and Information Integration, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense will publish a rule regarding Defense
Industrial Base Voluntary Cyber Security and Information Assurance
Information Sharing:
Interim Final Rule: This rule establishes cyber threat
information sharing, reporting, and analysis mechanisms
between DoD and cleared Defense Industrial Base (DIB)
contractors to enhance cyber threat situational awareness
and threat response. The rule establishes a voluntary
information sharing environment with DIB partners to
address the unacceptable risk and imminent threat to
national and economic security stemming from the
unauthorized access by U.S. adversaries or business
competitors to critical DoD unclassified information
resident on, or transiting, DIB unclassified networks. The
rule describes the collaborative DoD and DIB corporate-
level partnership to enhance security of DIB networks;
increase USG and industry knowledge of advanced cyber
threats; provide near-real time cyber threat information
sharing and understand the impact of data compromise on DoD
operational activities. Participation in the DIB Cyber
Security/Information Assurance program is voluntary and
open to all qualified cleared contractors. DoD anticipates
publishing an interim final rule in the second quarter of
FY 2011.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--Office of the Secretary (OS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
31. VOLUNTARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
10 USC 2005; 10 USC 2007
CFR Citation:
32 CFR 68
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within
DoD. Included are: Procedures for Service members participating in
education programs; guidelines for establishing, maintaining, and
operating voluntary education programs, including but not limited to,
instructor-led courses offered on-installation and off-installation, as
well as via distance learning; procedures for obtaining on-base
voluntary education programs and services; minimum criteria for
selecting institutions to deliver higher education programs and
services on military installations; the establishment of a DoD
Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding between DoD
and educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments; and
procedures for other education programs for Service members and their
adult family members.
Statement of Need:
This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within
DoD. Included are: Procedures for Service members participating in
education programs; guidelines for establishing, maintaining, and
operating voluntary education programs, including but not limited to,
instructor-led courses offered on-installation and off-installation, as
well as via distance learning; procedures for obtaining on-base
voluntary education programs and services; minimum criteria for
selecting institutions to deliver higher education programs and
services on military installations; the establishment of a DoD
Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding between DoD
and educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments; and
procedures for other education programs for Service members and their
adult family members.
Summary of Legal Basis:
sections 2005 and 2007 of title 10, United States Code
Alternatives:
None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Voluntary Education Programs include: High School Completion /Diploma;
Military Tuition Assistance (TA); Postsecondary Degree Programs;
Independent Study and Distance Learning Programs; College Credit
Examination Program; Academic Skills Program; and Certification/
Licensure Programs. Funding for Voluntary Education Programs during
2009 was $800 million, which included tuition assistance and
operational costs. This funding provided more than 650,000 individuals
(Service members and their adult family members) the opportunity to
participate in Voluntary Education Programs around the world.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/06/10 75 FR 47504
NPRM Comment Period End 10/05/10
Final Action 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 79508]]
Agency Contact:
Kerrie Tucker
Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary
Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 703 602-4949
RIN: 0790-AI50
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs (DODOASHA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
32. TRICARE; REIMBURSEMENT OF SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55
CFR Citation:
32 CFR 199
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule is to implement the statutory provision at 10 U.S.C.
1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be
determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers of
services of the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements
a reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries for inpatient services provided by Sole Community
Hospitals (SCHs). It will be phased in over a several-year period.
Statement of Need:
This rule is being published to implement the statutory provision in 10
U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care
be determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to payments to providers of services of
the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements a
reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries for inpatient services provided by Sole Community
Hospitals.
Summary of Legal Basis:
There is a statutory basis for this proposed rule: 10 U.S.C.
1079(j)(2).
Alternatives:
Alternatives were considered for phasing in the needed reform and an
alternative was selected for a gradual, smooth transition.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
We estimate the total reduction (from the proposed changes in this
rule) in hospital revenues under the SCH reform for its first year of
implementation (assumed for purposes of this RIA to be FY 2011),
compared to expenditures in that same period without the proposed SCH
changes, to be approximately $190 million. The estimated impact for FYs
2012 through 2015 (in $ millions) is $208, $229, $252, and $278
respectively.
Risks:
Failure to publish this proposed rule would result in noncompliance
with a statutory provision.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Marty Maxey
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 303 676-3627
RIN: 0720-AB41
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S
[[Page 79509]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. Introduction
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports 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 for education at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders
and individuals, including State educational agencies, local school
districts, early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools,
institutions of higher education, vocational schools, not-for-profit
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 the opportunity to attend
postsecondary education.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal
civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that receive
Federal financial assistance, and support innovation and research,
evaluation, technical assistance, and dissemination of research
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 2010 to 2011 school year, more
than 1.5 million children, ages birth through 5 years, will participate
in early learning programs under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); about 50 million students
will attend an estimated 99,000 elementary and secondary schools in
approximately 13,800 public school districts; and about 20 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; other
Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments; and
neighborhood groups, schools, colleges, rehabilitation service
providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations,
community-based 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 the 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 children and
youth, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and
increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provided funding for several key discretionary grant programs,
including the Race to the Top Fund and the Investing in Innovation
Fund. The Department issued regulations for these programs in 2009 and
2010. To the extent Congress reauthorizes and appropriates funds for
these programs in FY 2011, we may need to amend the regulations for
these programs.
B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
On March 13, 2010, the Obama administration released the Blueprint for
Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, the President's plan for revising the ESEA. The blueprint can be
found at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
blueprint/index.html.
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 in this statement of regulatory
priorities. 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. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
In early 2011, the Department plans to issue final regulations to
establish measures for determining whether certain postsecondary
educational programs lead to gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. These regulations also address the conditions under which
these educational programs remain eligible for the student financial
assistance programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
On March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, title II of
which is the SAFRA Act. SAFRA made a number of changes to the Federal
student financial aid programs under title IV of the HEA. One of the
most significant changes made by SAFRA is to end new loans under the
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program authorized by title IV,
part B, of the HEA as of July 1, 2010.
During the coming year, we plan to amend our regulations to address
issues related to the termination of the FFEL Program and the
Department's origination of all new loans under the William D. Ford
Direct Loan Program, as well as other statutory provisions enacted
under SAFRA. Unless subject to an exemption, regulations to reflect
changes to the student financial aid programs under title IV of the HEA
must
[[Page 79510]]
generally go through the negotiated rulemaking process.
D. 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.
E. 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 intend to issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend our current regulations for the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) to ensure
that States are able to effectively establish and expand robust
statewide longitudinal data systems while protecting student privacy.
F. Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress may legislate 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, as amended. 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 the following:
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 if possible.
Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with
State and local reform activities.
Ensure that the benefits justify the 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 Postsecondary Education (OPE)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
33. TITLE IV OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
20 USC title IV; PL 111-152
CFR Citation:
34 CFR ch VI
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Secretary proposes to amend its title IV, HEA student assistance
regulations, to (1) reflect the termination of the Federal Family
Education Loan Program pursuant to title II of the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which is the SAFRA Act, and (2)
reflect other statutory changes resulting from the SAFRA Act.
Statement of Need:
These regulations are needed to reflect the provisions of the SAFRA Act
(title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010),
which terminated the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, and
to reflect other amendments to the HEA resulting from the SAFRA Act.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-
152.
Alternatives:
The Department is still developing these proposed regulations; our
discussion of alternatives will be included in the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Estimates of the costs and benefits are currently under development and
will be published in the proposed regulations.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
David Bergeron
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Room 8022
1990 K Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 502-7815
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1840-AD05
[[Page 79511]]
_______________________________________________________________________
ED--OPE
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
34. PROGRAM INTEGRITY: GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT--MEASURES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
20 USC 1001 to 1003; 20 USC 1070g; 20 USC 1085; 20 USC 1088; 20 USC
1091 to 1092; 20 USC 1094; 20 USC 1099c; 20 USC 1099c-1; . . .
CFR Citation:
34 CFR 668
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Secretary amends the Student Assistance General Provisions to
establish measures for determining whether certain postsecondary
educational programs lead to gainful employment in recognized
occupations, and the conditions under which those educational programs
remain eligible for the student financial assistance programs
authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
Statement of Need:
These regulations are needed to establish measures for determining
whether certain postsecondary educational programs lead to gainful
employment in a recognized occupation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Alternatives:
A discussion of alternatives was outlined in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on July 26, 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Estimates of anticipated costs and benefits are set forth in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 26, 2010.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/26/10 75 FR 43616
NPRM Comment Period End 09/09/10
Final Action 02/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
John A. Kolotos
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Room 8018
1990 K Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006-8502
Phone: 202 502-7762
Email: [email protected]
Fred Sellers
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Room 8021
1990 K Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 502-7502
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1840-AD04
RIN: 1840-AD06
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S
[[Page 79512]]
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 published in 2010 have a
net benefit to the Nation of between $7.7 billion (7 percent discount
rate) and 23.5 billion (3 percent discount rate) over 30 years. By
2045, these standards will have saved enough energy to operate all U.S.
homes for 4 months.
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 5-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
5-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 22 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 2010 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/appliance--standards/schedule--setting.html.
The August 2010 report identifies all products for which DOE has missed
the deadlines established in EPCA (42 U.S.C. sec. 6291 et seq.). It
also describes the reasons for such delays and the Department's plan
for expeditiously prescribing new or amended standards. 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 residential
refrigerators and freezers, fluorescent lamp ballasts, residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps, residential furnaces,
manufactured housing, and clothes dryers and room air conditioners
provide significant benefits to the Nation. DOE believes that the
benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy standards for residential
refrigerators and freezers (energy savings, consumer average life-cycle
cost savings, national net present value increase, and emissions
reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of industry net present value and
life-cycle cost increases for some consumers). DOE estimates that these
refrigerator and freezer regulations will produce an energy savings of
4.5 quads over 30 years. The benefit to the Nation will be between
$2.44 billion (7 percent discount rate) and $18.57 billion (3 percent
discount rate). DOE believes that the proposed energy standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts, central air conditioners and heat pumps,
residential furnaces, manufactured housing, and clothes dryers and room
air conditioners will also be beneficial to the Nation. Because DOE has
not yet proposed candidate standard levels for this equipment, however,
DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits
for these actions. DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable
law, issue standards that will provide the maximum energy savings that
are technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notices of proposed
rulemaking for this equipment.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
35. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR
CONDITIONERS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(c) and (g)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Judicial, June 30, 2011.
Abstract:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, establishes initial
energy efficiency standard levels for many types of major residential
appliances and generally requires DOE to undertake two subsequent
rulemakings, at specified times, to determine whether the existing
standard for a covered product should be amended. This is the second
review of the standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners.
[[Page 79513]]
Statement of Need:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires minimum energy
efficiency standards for appliances, which has the effect of
eliminating inefficient appliances 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 to 6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
other than Automobiles. EPCA covers consumer products and certain
commercial equipment, including clothes dryers and room are
conditioners that are the subject of the rulemaking (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(2)-(8)). EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for room
air conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)) and directs DOE to conduct two
cycles of rulemaking to determine whether to adopt amended standards
(42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(3)(A)). For clothes dryers, EPCA sets a prescriptive
requirement (42 U.S.C. 6294(g)(3)) and directs DOE to conduct a cycle
of rulemaking to determine whether to adopt amended standards (42
U.S.C. 6294(g)(4)). This rulemaking represents the second and first
round of amendments to the standards for room air conditioners and
dryers respectively.
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is a technologically feasible
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 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:
Because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for these
products, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combine aggregate costs and
benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in compliance with all
applicable law, issue standards that provide the maximum energy savings
that are technologically feasibly and economically justified. Estimates
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notices of
proposed rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting,
Framework Document
Availability 10/09/07 72 FR 57254
Notice: Public Meeting,
Data Availability 02/23/10 75 FR 7987
Comment Period End 04/26/10
NPRM 03/00/11
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
This rulemaking is the second of two rulemakings required for this
equipment. Comments pertaining to this rule may be submitted
electronically to aham2-2008-TP[email protected].
URL For More Information:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings--standards/residential/clothes--
dryers.html
URL For Public Comments:
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: Merged with 1904-AB51, Related to 1904-AB76, Related to
1904-AC02
RIN: 1904-AA89
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
36. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(d)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Judicial, June 30, 2011.
Abstract:
DOE is reviewing and updating energy efficiency standards, as required
by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to reflect technological
advances. All amended standards must be technologically feasible and
economically justified. This is the second review of the statutory
standards for residential central air conditioners and air conditioning
heat pumps.
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 to 6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
other than Automobiles. Amendments expanded title III of EPCA to
include certain commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6292(3)) The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987
(NAECA), Pub. L. 100--12, established energy conservation standards for
central air conditioners and heat pumps as well as requirements for
determining whether these standards should be amended. NAECA also
required that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if
more stringent standards are economically justified and technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)) On January 22, 2001, DOE published a
final rule in the Federal Register, which completed the first
rulemaking cycle to amend energy conservation standards for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps. 66 FR 7170. This rulemaking
encompasses DOE's second cycle of review to determine whether the
standards in effect for residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps should be amended.
[[Page 79514]]
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 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:
Because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for this
equipment, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate costs
and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in compliance with
all applicable law, issue standards that provide the maximum energy
savings that are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the
notices of proposed rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting,
Framework Document
Availability 06/06/08 73 FR 32243
Notice: Public Meetings,
Data Availability 03/25/10 75 FR 14368
NPRM 12/00/10
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
This rulemaking is the second of two rulemakings required for this
equipment. Comments pertaining to this rule may be submitted
electronically to [email protected].
URL For More Information:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/residential/
central--ac--hp.html
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Wes Anderson
Mechanical Engineer, Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7335
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB94
RIN: 1904-AB47
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
37. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(g)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Judicial, June 30, 2011.
Abstract:
DOE is reviewing and updating energy efficiency standards, as required
by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to reflect technological
advances. All amended energy efficiency standards must be
technologically feasible and economically justified. This is the second
review of the statutory standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
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:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291
to 6309) established an energy conservation program for major household
appliances. Amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988) established energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. These amendments
also required that DOE (1) conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine
whether these standards should be amended and (2), for each rulemaking
cycle, determine whether the standards in effect for fluorescent lamp
ballasts should be amended to apply to additional fluorescent lamp
ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(A)--(B)). On September 19, 2000, DOE
published a final rule in the Federal Register, which completed the
first rulemaking cycle to amend energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts. 65 FR 56740. This rulemaking encompasses
DOE's second cycle of review to determine whether the standards in
effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended and whether the
standards should be applicable to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 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:
Because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for this
equipment, however, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the
maximum energy savings that are technologically feasible and
economically justified. Estimates of energy savings will be provided
when DOE issues the notices of proposed rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting,
Framework Document
Availability 01/22/08 73 FR 3653
Notice: Public Meetings,
Data Availability 03/24/10 75 FR 14319
NPRM 12/00/10
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
[[Page 79515]]
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
This rulemaking is the second of two rulemakings required for this
equipment. Comments pertaining to this rule may be submitted
electronically to [email protected].
URL For More Information:
www1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/appliance--standards/residential.
fluorescent--lamp.ballasts.html
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Linda Graves
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-1851
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB77, Related to 1904-AA99
RIN: 1904-AB50
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
38. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(f) and (m)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Judicial, June 30, 2011.
Abstract:
DOE published an energy conservation standard final rule for
residential furnaces and boilers in the Federal Register on November
19, 2007 (72 FR 65136). Petitioners challenged this final rule on
several grounds. DOE filed a motion for voluntary remand to allow the
agency to consider: 1) The application of regional standards in
additional to national standards for furnaces, authorized by Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007) and 2)
the effect of alternative standards on natural gas prices. This motion
for voluntary remand was granted on April 21, 2009. DOE has initiated
this rulemaking to consider amended energy conservation standards for
residential furnaces.
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 to 6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
other than Automobiles. The program covers certain commercial and
industrial equipment, including residential furnaces. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(5)) EPCA prescribed the initial energy conservation standards
for residential furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)--(2)) The statute
further provides DOE with the authority to conduct rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)).
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 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:
Because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for this
equipment, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate costs
and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in compliance with
all applicable law, issue standards that provide the maximum energy
savings that are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the
notices of proposed rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting,
Rulemaking Analysis
Plan Availability 03/15/10 75 FR 12144
NPRM 12/00/10
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
URL For More Information:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/residential/
furnaces--boilers.html
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Mohammed Khan
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7892
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AC06
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
39. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 17071
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 460
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
Abstract:
The rule would establish energy efficiency standards for manufactured
housing and a system to ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, the
standards.
[[Page 79516]]
Statement of Need:
The Energy Independence and Security Act requires increased energy
efficiency standards for manufactured housing.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
42 U.S.C. 17071 directs DOE to develop and publish energy standards for
manufactured housing.
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to establish standards
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. In making this determination, DOE 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:
Because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels, DOE cannot
provide an estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these
actions. DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law,
issue standards that provide the increased energy savings that are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 02/22/10 75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End 03/24/10
NPRM 04/00/11
Final Action 12/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Jean J. Boulin
Project Manager, Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9870
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AC11
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
40. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATORS,
REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(b)(4)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 31, 2010.
Abstract:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 amended the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act and directed the Secretary to issue a final
rule to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The final rule will contain any
amended standards.
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 to 6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
other than Automobiles. EPCA covers consumer products and certain
commercial equipment, including the types of refrigeration products
that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA
prescribes energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(b)(1)-(2)) and directs DOE to conduct three cycles of rulemakings
to determine whether to adopt amended standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(b)(3)(A)(i), (b)(3)(B)-(C), and (b)(4)) This rulemaking represents
the third round of amendments to the standards for refrigeration
products.
Alternatives:
The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 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 residential refrigerators and freezers (energy savings,
consumer average lifecycle 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 4.5 quads
over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between $2.56
billion and $18.80 billion.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting,
Framework Document
Availability 09/18/08 73 FR 54089
Notice: Public Meeting,
Data Availability 11/16/09 74 FR 58915
NPRM 09/27/10 75 FR 59470
NPRM Comment Period End 11/26/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
[[Page 79517]]
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Additional Information:
Comments pertaining to this rule may be submitted electronically to
ResRefFreez-2008-STD[email protected].
URL For More Information:
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/residential/
refrigerators--freezer.html
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Subid Wagley
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 287-1414
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB92
RIN: 1904-AB79
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S
[[Page 79518]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for FY 2011
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. Significantly,
the Congress tasked HHS as the primary Department to implement the
Affordable Care Act of 2010.
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. Significantly, the
Congress tasked HHS as the primary Department to implement the
Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Department has met the statutory
deadlines related to the key provisions of this law through the
issuance of regulations, bulletins, and other guidance documents. The
principle objective of the Department will continue to be
implementation of the Affordable Care Act in a manner that promotes
consumer protections, improves quality and safety, incentivizes more
efficient care delivery, and slows the growth of health care costs.
These policies reflect the Department's commitment to put consumers
first, to provide stability in private insurance markets, and reform
the health care delivery system.
Since assuming the leadership of HHS last year, Secretary Kathleen G.
Sebelius has sought to prioritize efforts to promote early childhood
health and development, help Americans achieve and maintain healthy
weight, prevent and reduce tobacco use, protect the health and safety
of Americans in public health emergencies, accelerate the process of
scientific discovery to improve patient care, implement a 21st century
food safety system, and ensure program integrity and responsible
stewardship. Further, the Secretary has worked devotedly to enact
meaningful reform of the country's health care system, and the
Department has and will continue to focus considerable effort on
implementation of the landmark health care reform bill passed by the
Congress and signed into law by President Obama in March of 2010.
The Obama Administration has prioritized the use of rulemaking to
promote open government and to identify regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits. HHS regulatory priorities in the upcoming fiscal
year reflect these goals in two ways. First, they advance transparency
through the use of disclosure as a regulatory tool. Second, they
maximize the net benefits conferred on society by utilizing rigorous
cost-benefit analyses in the development of regulations. Below is an
overview of the Department's regulatory priorities for FY 2011 that
best exemplify these objectives.
Promotion of Open Government
1. Transparency for Consumers Under the Affordable Care Act
Two regulations to be promulgated by the Department in FY 2011 will
require that insurers submit certain information on how they pay claims
and set their premiums. One of these regulations will require certain
statistics and information on claims, rating processes, and cost
sharing to be disclosed to the State and Federal Government, as well as
to consumers. HHS estimates the benefits of this regulation to come
from improved information for consumers and regulators, which will in
turn result in a more efficient insurance market. Improved information
for consumers will allow them to make better health insurance choices--
to choose higher quality insurers and ones that more closely match
their preferences with respect to plan design. This could result in
increased satisfaction and decreased morbidity. In addition, consumers
may be more likely to choose insurers with more efficient processes,
which could result in a reduction in administrative costs. Improved
information for regulators will allow for monitoring of the markets to
track current industry practices, which will allow for better
enforcement of current market regulations through more targeted audits
that are based upon insurer responses. Additionally, reporting
requirements and the threat of targeted audits will likely influence
issuer behavior to motivate compliance. It is not possible to quantify
the benefits at this time. The direct costs imposed by the regulation
are the reporting requirements. These requirements are still being
developed, and will be quantified in the regulation.
The other regulation will ensure that all insurers use a uniform,
easily understood format for accurate summaries of benefits and
coverage explanations. Together, these two regulations will improve
availability of meaningful information about health insurance to
consumers, enabling them to better assess the coverage they currently
have and/or make choices among different coverage options. HHS
estimates the benefits of this regulation to come from improved
information for consumers and regulators, which will in turn result in
a more efficient insurance market. Improved information for consumers
will allow them to make better health insurance choices--to choose
higher quality insurers and ones that more closely match their
preferences with respect to plan design. This could result in increased
satisfaction and decreased morbidity. It is not possible to quantify
the benefits at this time. The direct costs imposed by the regulation
are the creation and provision of summary documents to consumers at the
time of application, prior to enrollment and at reenrollment. There
will also be costs imposed by the creation of the coverage facts label
section of the summary documents. These requirements are still being
developed and will be quantified in the regulation.
2. Public Health and Nutrition
Three rules to be promulgated by the FDA in the upcoming fiscal year
will propose new labeling requirements aimed at better disclosing to
the public critical information to enable them to make informed
decisions about food and drugs that they choose to consume. One
proposed rule will require color graphics on cigarette packages
depicting the health consequences of smoking. The largest benefits of
this proposed rule stem from increased life expectancies for
individuals who are induced not to smoke. Other quantifiable benefits
come from reductions in cases of non-fatal emphysema, reductions in
fire losses, and reductions in medical expenditures. Unquantifiable
benefits come from reductions in smokers' non-fatal illnesses other
than emphysema, reductions in passive smoking, and reductions in infant
and child health effects due to mothers' smoking during pregnancy.
Large, one-time costs will arise from the need to change cigarette
package labels and remove point-of-sale promotions that do not comply
with the new advertising restrictions.
[[Page 79519]]
Additionally, there will be smaller ongoing FDA enforcement costs.
Two other key rules will implement provisions of the Affordable Care
Act that require certain chain restaurants and vending machine
operators to disclose nutritional information about their offerings. In
the case of chain restaurants, these businesses will bear the cost of
analysis of their menu items for nutritional information where this
analysis does not already exist, and the cost of revising existing
menus and other displays to note the required information. In the case
of vending machines, the bulk of the costs associated with this rule
will be in managing the actual disclosure of calories at the machine.
Because almost all vending machines sell food that is previously
manufactured and packaged, most vended foods are subject to the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which means that calorie content
is already collected. The requirements of these rules, specifically
that calorie and other nutrition information appear at the point of
purchase, solves the apparent market failure in information provision
stemming from present-biased preferences.
3. Enhanced Insurance Appeal and External Review Processes Under the
Affordable Care Act
With a goal of empowering patient consumers, the Affordable Care Act
provides individuals with the right to appeal decisions made by their
private health insurer to an outside, independent decisionmaker,
regardless of consumers' State of residence or type of health
insurance. One rule to be promulgated by the Department in FY 2011 will
ensure that non-grandfathered plans and issuers comply with State or
Federal external review processes. This rule will advance the
Administration's objective of transparency by making certain that all
consumers--regardless of whether their plan has grandfather status--are
afforded an opportunity to appeal the decisions of their health carrier
before an independent body. HHS estimates the benefits of the
regulation to come from the transformation of the current, highly
variable health claims and appeals process into a more uniform and
structured process. This will result in a reduction in the incidence of
excessive delays and inappropriate denials, averting serious, avoidable
lapses in health care quality and resultant injuries and losses to
participants; enhance enrollees' level of confidence in and
satisfaction with their health care benefits and improve plans'
awareness of participant concerns, prompting plan responses that
improve quality; helping ensure prompt and precise adherence to
contract terms and improving the flow of information between plans and
enrollees to bolster the efficiency of labor, health care, and
insurance markets. It is not possible to quantify these benefits at
this time. The primary sources of costs are those required to
administer and conduct the internal and external review process,
prepare and distribute required disclosures and notices, and bring plan
and issuers' internal and external claims and appeals procedures into
compliance with the new requirements. In addition, there are start-up
costs for issuers in the individual market to bring themselves into
compliance and the costs and transfers associated with the reversal of
denied claims. These costs are estimated to total $50.4 million in
2011, $78.8 million in 2012, and $101.1 million in 2013.
4. Notification Requirements for Long-Term Care Facility Closures
A rule to be promulgated by CMS in the upcoming fiscal year will
require that, in the case of a long-term care facility closure, the
facility administrator provides written notification of closure and the
plan for the relocation of residents at least 60 days prior to the
impending closing. Such transparency will afford patients and family
members a greater opportunity to meaningfully participate in decisions
regarding relocation. The costs associated with the implementation of
this rule are related to the efforts made by each facility to develop a
plan for closure. The benefits would include the protection of
residents' health and safety and a smooth transition for residents who
need to be relocated, as well as their family members and facility
staff.
In addition to the aforementioned rules, the Department's regulatory
priorities in the upcoming fiscal year include:
Eliminating Insurance Company Abuses Under the Affordable Care Act
The Affordable Care Act made important changes that will improve the
affordability and transparency of private health insurance in the
United States. Specifically, the law calls for the annual State review
of unreasonable increases in health insurance premiums, which will help
protect consumers from unjustified and/or excessive premium increases.
In developing a process for the review of rate increases, HHS will
propose standards for when and how health insurance issuers will be
required to report rate increases, as well as detail the relevant data
and documentation that must be submitted in support of rate increases.
The proposed rule will detail criteria for how determinations of
unreasonableness will be made by HHS and also sets forth the conditions
under which HHS will adopt unreasonableness determinations made by
States. The rule will also propose standards for when and how health
insurance issuers must provide justifications for rate increases
determined to be unreasonable and when such justifications must be
posted on the issuer's website. It will explain that HHS will post
information regarding rate increases on its website to ensure the
public disclosure of information on rate increases, including increases
determined to be unreasonable. Finally, the proposed rule will address
the development by HHS of annual summaries of data on rate trends.
The CLASS Act and Improving Long-Term Care
The Department will promulgate a significant rule in FY 2011 that will
improve the quality of long-term care for affected Americans.
Implementation of the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services and
Support) Act will provide a new opportunity for all Americans to
prepare themselves financially to remain independent under a variety of
future health circumstances as they age. While this program may help
reduce spending down to Medicaid, costs to implement the proposed
regulation have not yet been estimated.
Food Safety
The Department is committed to improvements in our food safety system
guided in part by the 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. As such, an FDA regulation will
aim squarely at protecting the youngest and most vulnerable Americans
by finalizing a modernization of existing requirements
[[Page 79520]]
on current good manufacturing practices for infant formula.
Streamlining Drug and Device Requirements
Two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final rules will standardize the
electronic submission of registrations and listings for devices, data
from studies evaluating drugs and biologics for humans, and data on
adverse events involving medical devices. Standardization of clinical
data structure, terminology, and code sets will increase the efficiency
of the Agency review process. FDA estimates that the costs resulting
from the proposal would include substantial one-time costs, additional
waves of one-time costs as standards mature, 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
associated with reduced time for preparing applications, including
reduced preparation costs and faster time to market for beneficial
products. In addition, the proposed rule would improve patient safety
through faster, more efficient, comprehensive, and accurate data
review, as well as enhanced communication among sponsors and
clinicians.
Additionally, a new proposed rule will establish a unique
identification system that will identify a device through distribution
and use. FDA estimates that the affected industry would incur one-time
and recurring costs, including administrative costs, to change and
print labels that include the required elements of a unique device
identifier (UDI), costs to purchase equipment to print and verify the
UDI, and costs to purchase software, integrate and validate the UDI
into existing IT systems. Certain entities would be required to submit
information about each UDI and the relevant medical device into a
database. FDA anticipates that implementation of a UDI system would
help improve the efficiency of recalled medical devices and medical
device adverse event reporting. The proposed rule would also
standardize how medical devices are identified and contribute to future
potential public health benefits of initiatives aimed at optimizing the
use of automated systems in healthcare. Most of these benefits,
however, require complementary developments and innovations in the
private and public sectors. Together, these rules will enable the FDA
to more quickly and efficiently process and review information
submitted on devices, drugs, and biologics, furthering their ability to
both better protect the public safety and more rapidly advance
innovations to the market.
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 2012. 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. Additionally, another rule promulgated
under the Affordable Care Act will propose a Medicare shared savings
program for provider groups to establish Accountable Care Organizations
and share in savings generated for Medicare by meeting certain
benchmarks.
Health Information Technology
The Department will issue a rule that will modify the existing HIPAA
privacy and security enforcement regulations to comply with the
provisions of the HITECH Act. This rule will ensure that Americans can
be confident that their medical data is kept private as the country
increasingly moves to electronic health records. These modifications to
the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules will benefit health
care consumers by strengthening the privacy and security protections
afforded their health information by HIPAA covered entities and their
business associates. The Agency believes the primary cost associated
with this regulation will be for covered entities to revise and
redistribute their notices of privacy practices to ensure health care
consumers are informed of their new rights and protections. The Agency
estimates the cost of revising and redistributing these notices to
total approximately $166.1 million over the first year following the
effective date of the regulation. Of this total, the cost to health
care providers is estimated to be approximately $46 million and to
health plans to be approximately $120.1 million. The Agency does not
believe that the additional modifications to the Privacy, Security, or
Enforcement Rules required by this regulation will significantly
increase covered entity or business associate costs. It is estimated
that the changes to the HIPAA authorization and access requirements
will impose little to no additional costs on covered entities and their
business associates, and in some cases will reduce burden. Further, it
is expected that the costs of modifying business associate contracts
will be mitigated both by the additional one-year transition period
which will allow the costs of modifying contracts to be incorporated
into the normal renegotiation of contracts as the contracts expire, as
well as sample business associate contract language to be provided by
the Agency.
Head Start Program Integrity
The Department will finalize a rule in FY 2011 that will implement
statutory requirements requiring a re-evaluation of Head Start grantees
every 5 years to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent in the most
effective possible manner by this critical program. The Administration
on Children and Families estimates the costs of implementing the new
reporting requirements described in the rule will be approximately
$20,000 annually. In addition, at least 25 percent of grantees reviewed
in a year will be required to submit a competitive application for a
new 5-year grant, at an estimated cost of less than $1,500 for each
grantee. In terms of benefits, the proposed system will fund only high-
performing grantees in order to ensure the best services for Head Start
children are provided and child outcomes are improved.
Small Business Impact
Finally, HHS actively seeks to minimize regulatory burdens on small
business. Over 95 per cent of the entities that we regulate -
hospitals, doctors' practices, social service providers, medical device
firms, universities and many others - qualify as ``small entities''
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). All of the aforementioned
actions have been developed in light of and with serious consideration
of the small-business impact analysis.
[[Page 79521]]
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
41. MODIFICATIONS TO THE HIPAA PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND ENFORCEMENT RULES
UNDER THE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC AND CLINICAL
HEALTH ACT
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
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, Security, and Enforcement
Rules as necessary to implement the privacy, security, and certain
enforcement provisions of subtitle D 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, Security, and Enforcement Rules to implement the privacy and
security provisions in sections 13400 to 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 to 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 to 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, Security, and Enforcement
Rules will benefit health care consumers by strengthening the privacy
and security protections afforded their health information by HIPAA
covered entities and their business associated. The Agency believe the
primary cost associate with this regulation will be for covered
entities to revise and redistribute their notices of privacy practices
to ensure health care consumers are informed of their new rights and
protections. The Agency estimates the cost of revising and
redistributing these notices to total approximates $166.1 million over
the first year following the effective date of the regulation. Of this
total, the cost heal care providers is estimated to be approximately
$46 million and to health plans to be approximately $120.1 million. The
Agency does not believe that the additional modification to Privacy,
Security, or Enforcement Rules required by this regulation will
significantly increase covered entity or business associates and in
some cases will reduce burden. Further, it is expected that the costs
of modifying business associate contracts will be mitigated both by the
additional one-year transition period which will allow the costs of
modifying contracts to be incorporated into the normal renegotiation of
contracts as the contracts expire, as well as sample business associate
contract language to be provided by the Agency.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
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--Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
42. TRANSPARENCY REPORTING
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148, title I, subtitle A, sec 1001 PHS Act, sec 2715A
CFR Citation:
45 CFR 153, Insurance Rules (sec 2715A)
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Affordable Care Act requires group health plans and health
insurance issuers to submit specific information to the Secretary, the
State insurance commissioner, and to make the information available to
the public. This includes information on claims payment policies, the
number of claims denied, data on rating practices and other information
as determined by the Secretary. The provision also requires plans and
issuers to provide to individuals upon request the amount of cost
sharing that the individual would be responsible for paying for a
specific item or service provided by a participating provider. This
interim final rule would implement information disclosure provisions in
section 2715A of the Public Health Service Act, as added by the
Affordable Care Act.
Statement of Need:
The Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Department
of Labor and the Treasury Department, will issue interim final rules to
implement the information disclosure
[[Page 79522]]
provisions in section 2715A of the Public Health Service Act, as added
by the Affordable Care Act. This regulation will improve the
transparency of information about how health coverage works so
consumers will have better information to use and assess the coverage
they have now, and/or make choices among different coverage options.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Title I, subtitle A, section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act adds
section 2715A to the Public Health Service Act that will require group
health plans and health insurance issuers to make certain disclosures
to the Secretary, the State insurance commissioner, the public, and in
some cases, individuals.
Alternatives:
None--statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
HHS estimates the benefits of this regulation to come from improved
information for consumers and regulators, which will in tern result in
a more efficient insurance market. Improved information for consumers
will allow them to make better health insurance choices -- to choose
higher quality insurers and ones that more closely match their
preferences with respect to plan design. This could result in increased
satisfaction and decreased morbidity. In addition, consumers may be
more likely to choose insurers with more efficient processes, which
could result in a reduction in administrative costs. Improved
information for regulators will allow for monitoring of the markets to
track current industry practices, which will allow for better
enforcement of current market regulations through more targeted audits
that are based upon insurer responses. Additionally, reporting
requirements and the threat of targeted audit will likely influence
issuer behavior to motivate compliance. I is not possible to quantify
the benefits at this time.
The direct costs imposed by the regulation are reporting requirements.
These requirements are still being developed, and will be quantified in
the regulation.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Kaye L. Pestaina
Office of Consumer Support
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
200 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 301 492-4227
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0950-AA07
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--OCIIO
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
43. RATE REVIEW
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148
CFR Citation:
45 CFR 154
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary to work with states to
establish an annual review of unreasonable rate increases, to monitor
premium increases and to award grants to states to carry out their rate
review process. This interim final rule would implement the rate review
process.
Statement of Need:
The Affordable Care Act requires standards to be set for the review of
rate increases. The proposed rule will detail standards for when and
how health insurance issuers will be required to report rate increases,
as well as detail the relevant data and documentation that must be
submitted in support of the rate increases. The proposed rule will
detail criteria for how determinations of unreasonableness will be made
by HHS, and also sets forth the conditions under which HHS will adopt
unreasonableness determinations made by States. This regulation is part
of the health insurance market reform and will increase affordability
of health insurance for all Americans.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based
on the Affordable Care Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
HHS expects that costs associated with this rulemaking will be minimal
as insurers routinely report to States on rate increases. Insurers may
experience slight additional costs in connection with completion of
policy rate data collection forms and any necessary submission of
justification forms for rates that trigger unreasonable designations.
The benefits of these requirements include increased consumer
protections around unsubstantiated premium rate increases, reduced
health insurance rate increases, increased transparency and consumer
confidence in the products they buy, and ensuring financially solvent
companies that can pay promised benefits.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 07/03/10 75 FR 45014
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 09/28/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
James Mayhew
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Mail Stop C2-12016
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-9244
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0950-AA03
[[Page 79523]]
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--OCIIO
44. UNIFORM EXPLANATION OF BENEFITS, COVERAGE FACTS, AND
STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148, title I, subtitle A, sec 1001 (Public Health Service Act,
sec 2715)
CFR Citation:
45 CFR 153, Insurance Rules (sec 2715)
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary to develop standards for
use by group health plans and health insurance issuers in compiling and
providing a summary of benefits and coverage explanation that
accurately describes benefits and coverage. The Secretary must also set
standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance
coverage, including specific terms set out in the statute. Plans and
issuers must provide information according to these standards no later
than 24 months after enactment. This interim final rule would implement
the information disclosure provisions in section 2715 of PHSA , as
added by the Affordable Care Act.
Statement of Need:
The Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Departments
of Labor and the Treasury, will issue interim final rules to implement
the information disclosure provisions in section 2715 of PHSA, as added
by the Affordable Care Act. This regulation will provide consumers with
a simplified and uniform overview of their benefits, specific
``Coverage Facts'' or scenarios for the costs of coverage for specific
episodes of care, and standardized consumer-friendly health coverage
definitions. This will allow consumers to better understand the
coverage that they have and allow consumers choosing coverage to better
compare coverage options.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Title I, subtitle A, section 1001, of the Affordable Care Act adds
section 2715 to the Public Health Service Act that will require group
health plans and health insurance issuers to provide a summary of
benefits and coverage explanations and standardized definitions to
applicants, enrollees, and policyholders.
Alternatives:
None--statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
HHS estimates the benefits of this regulation to come from improved
information for consumers and regulators, which will in turn result in
a more efficient insurance market. Improved information for consumers
will allow them to make better health insurance choices--to chose
higher quality insurers and ones that more closely match their
preference with respect to plan design. This could result in increased
satisfaction and decreased morbidity. It is not possible to quantify
the benefits at this time.
The direct costs imposed by the regulation are the creation and
provision of summary documents to consumers at the time of application,
prior to enrollment and at re-enrollment. There will also be costs
imposed by the creation of the coverage facts label section of the
summary documents. These requirements are still being developed and
will be quantified in the regulation.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Kaye L. Pestaina
Office of Consumer Support
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
200 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 301 492-4227
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0950-AA08
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
45. 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 address 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
[[Page 79524]]
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 resulting from the proposal would include
substantial one-time costs, additional waves of one-time costs as
standards mature, 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 associated with reduced time for
preparing applications, including reduced preparation costs and faster
time to market for beneficial products. In addition, the proposed rule
would improve 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 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Martha Nguyen
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
WO 51, Room 6352
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Phone: 301 796-3471
Fax: 301 847-8440
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AC52
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
46. UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
15 USC 1451 to 1461; 21 USC 141 to 149, 321 to 394, 467f, 679, 821,
1034; 28 USC 2112; 42 USC 201 to 262, 263a and 263b, 264, 271, 364
CFR Citation:
21 CFR 16, 801, 803, 806, 810, 814, 820, 821,
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding section 519(f) (21
U.S.C. 360i(f)). This section requires FDA to promulgate regulations
establishing a unique identification system for medical devices
requiring the label of medical devices to bear a unique identifier,
unless FDA specifies an alternative placement or provides for
exceptions. The unique identifier must adequately identify the device
through distribution and use, and may include information on the lot or
serial number.
Statement of Need:
A unique device identification system will help reduce medical errors;
will allow FDA, the healthcare community, and industry to more rapidly
review and organize adverse event reports; identify problems relating
to a particular device (even down to a particular lot or batch, range
of serial numbers, or range of manufacturing or expiration dates); and
thereby allow for more rapid, effective, corrective actions that focus
sharply on the specific devices that are of concern.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rule is provided for/mandated by FDAAA. Section 519(f) of the FD&C
Act (added by sec. 226 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007) directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations
establishing a unique device identification (UDI) system for medical
devices, requiring the label of devices to bear a unique identifier
that will adequately identify the device through its distribution and
use.
Alternatives:
FDA considered several alternatives that allow certain requirements of
the proposed rule to vary, such as the required elements of a UDI and
the scope of affected devices.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FDA estimates that the affected industry would incur one-time and
recurring costs, including administrative costs, to change and print
labels that include the required elements of a UDI, costs to purchase
equipment to print and verify the UDI, and costs to purchase software,
integrate and validate the UDI into existing IT systems. Certain
entities would be required to submit information about each UDI and the
relevant medical device into a database, FDA would incur costs to
develop,
[[Page 79525]]
implement, and administer a database that would serve as a repository
of information to facilitate the identification of medical devices
through their distribution and use. FDA anticipates that implementation
of a UDI system would help improve the efficiency of recalled medical
devices and medical device adverse event reporting. The proposed rule
would also standardize how medical devices are identified and
contribute to future potential public health benefits of initiatives
aimed at optimizing the use of automated systems in healthcare. Most of
these benefits, however, require complementary developments and
innovations in the private and public sectors.
Risks:
This rule is intended to substantially eliminate existing obstacles to
the adequate identification of medical devices used in the Unites
States. By providing the means to rapidly and definitely identify a
device and key attributes that affect its safe and effective use, the
rule would reduce medical errors that result from misidentification of
a device or confusion concerning its appropriate use. The rule will
fulfill a statutory directive to establish a unique device
identification system.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
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:
John J. Crowley
Senior Advisor for Patient Safety
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
WO 66, Room 2315
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 980-1936
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG31
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
47. CIGARETTE WARNING LABEL STATEMENTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
PL 111-31, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, sec
201
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, June 22, 2011.
Section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
(FCLAA), as amended by section 201 of the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act), requires FDA to issue
regulations no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of the
Tobacco Control Act that require color graphics depicting the negative
health consequences of smoking.
Abstract:
Section 4 of the FCLAA, as amended by section 201 of the Tobacco
Control Act, requires FDA to issue regulations that require color
graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to
accompany required warning statements. FDA also may adjust the type
size, text and format of the required label statements on product
packaging and advertising if FDA determines that it is appropriate so
that both the graphics and the accompanying label statements are clear,
conspicuous, legible and appear within the specified area.
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule is necessary to amend FDA's regulations to add a new
requirement for the display of health warnings on cigarette packages
and in cigarette advertisements and to specify the color graphics that
must accompany each textual warning statement.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The proposed rule would implement a provision of the Tobacco Control
Act that requires FDA to issue regulations requiring color graphics
depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the
nine new textual warning statements that will be required under the
Tobacco Control Act. The Tobacco Control Act amends the FCLAA to
require each cigarette package and advertisement to bear one of nine
new textual warning statements.
Alternatives:
The Agency will compare the proposed rule to two hypothetical
alternatives: An otherwise identical rule with a 24-month compliance
period and an otherwise identical rule with a 6-month compliance
period. Although we will compare the rule to two hypothetical
alternatives, they are not viable regulatory options as they are
inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The largest benefits of this proposed rule stem from increased life
expectancies for individuals who are induced not to smoke. Other
quantifiable benefits come from reductions in cases of non-fatal
emphysema, reductions in fire losses, and reductions in medical
expenditures. Unquantifiable benefits come from reductions in smokers'
non-fatal illnesses other than emphysema, reductions in passive
smoking, and reductions in infant and child health effects due to
mothers' smoking during pregnancy.Large, one-time costs will arise from
the need to change cigarette package labels and remove point-of-sale
promotions that do not comply with the new advertising restrictions.
Additionally, there will be smaller ongoing FDA enforcement costs.
Risks:
This proposed rule would reduce the risk to the public by helping to
clearly and effectively convey the negative health consequences of
smoking on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements, which
would help both to discourage non-smokers, including minor children,
from initiating cigarette
[[Page 79526]]
use and to encourage current smokers to consider cessation.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/12/10 75 FR 69524
NPRM Comment Period End 01/11/11
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
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:
Gerie Voss
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
9200 Corporate Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 877 287-1373
Fax: 240 276-4193
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG41
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
48. FOOD LABELING: NUTRITION LABELING FOR FOOD SOLD IN VENDING
MACHINES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 343; 21 USC 371
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, March 23, 2011, Proposed rule to be published 1 year
after enactment.
Abstract:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing regulations to
establish requirements for nutrition labeling of food sold in vending
machines. FDA is also proposing the terms and conditions for
registering to voluntarily be subject to the requirements of section
4205. FDA is taking this action to carry out the provisions of section
4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable
Care Act'' or ``ACA''), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule was mandated by section 4205 of the Affordable Care
Act.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was signed
into law. Section 4205 amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act by creating new clause (H) to require that vending machine
operators, who own or operate 20 or more machines, disclose calories
for food items. FDA has the authority to issue this proposed rule under
section 403(q)(5)(H) and 701(a) (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)).
Section 701(a) of the act vests the Secretary (and, by delegation, the
FDA) with the authority to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the act.
Alternatives:
Section 4205 requires the Secretary (and, by delegation, the FDA) to
establish, by regulation, requirements for calorie disclosure of food
items for vending machine operators, who own or operate 20 or more
machines. Therefore, there are no alternatives to rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The bulk of the costs associated with this rule will be in managing the
actual disclosure of calories at the machine. Since almost all vending
machines sell food that is previously manufactured and packaged, most
vended foods are subject to the Nutrition Labeling Education Act, which
means that calorie content is already collected. A likely scenario for
response to vending machine labeling is that food manufacturers include
a set of calorie label stickers in each case of product.
Since consumers of vended foods do not generally have access to
nutrition information prior to purchase, requiring that operators make
that information available should benefit consumers. Consumers may
ignore future costs of overeating, relative to the current gains from
eating, even when they understand the connection. Therefore, consumers
do not generally demand calorie and other nutrition information for
food away from home, even when they do, given a wider frame of
reference, value that information. Given the costs and the uncertain
reception for calorie information that many consumers appear not to
care about, most vending machine operators have chosen not to display
calorie information. The requirements of the proposed rule,
specifically, that calorie and other nutrition information appear at
the point of purchase, solves the apparent market failure in providing
information provision stemming from present-biased preferences.
Risks:
For some vending machine foods, consumers cannot view the nutrition
facts panel or otherwise see nutrition information prior to purchasing
the item. Completion of this rulemaking will provide consumers
information about the nutritional content of food to empower them to
make healthier food choices from vending machines.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Geraldine A. June
Supervisor, Product Evaluation and Labeling Team
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(HFS-820)
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1802
Fax: 301 436-2636
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG56
[[Page 79527]]
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
49. FOOD LABELING: NUTRITION LABELING OF STANDARD MENU ITEMS
IN CHAIN RESTAURANTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 343; 21 USC 371
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, March 23, 2011, Proposed rule to be published 1 year
after enactment.
Abstract:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing regulations to
establish requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items
for chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. FDA is
also proposing the terms and conditions for registering to voluntarily
be subject to the requirements of section 4205. FDA is taking this
action to carry out the provisions of section 4205 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable Care Act'' or
``ACA''), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule was mandated by section 4205 of the Affordable Care
Act.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was signed
into law. Section 4205 amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act by creating new clause (H) to require that chain
restaurants, with 20 or more locations, require certain nutrient
disclosure. Specifically, section 4205 required the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to issue a proposed regulation to carry out clause
(H) of the ACA no later than 1 year of enactment of this clause (i.e.,
Mar. 23, 2011). FDA has the authority to issue this proposed rule under
section 403(q)(5)(H) and 701(a) (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)).
Section 701(a) of the act vests the Secretary (and, by delegation, the
FDA) with the authority to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the act.
As directed by section 4205, FDA is proposing requirements for menu
calorie declaration, as well as other nutrition information declaration
to implement the provisions of 403(q)(5)(H). FDA is also proposing the
terms and conditions for registering to voluntarily be subject to the
requirements of section 4205.
Alternatives:
Section 4205 requires the Secretary (and, by delegation, the FDA) to
establish, by regulation, requirements for nutrition labeling of
standard menu items for chain restaurants and similar retail food
establishments. Therefore, there are no alternatives to rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Chain restaurants operating in local jurisdictions that impose
different nutrition labeling requirements will benefit from having a
uniform national standard. Any restaurant, with fewer than 20
locations, may opt in to the national standard to receive this benefit.
Many chain restaurants, with 20 or more locations, will bear costs for
adding nutrition information to menus and menu boards. Consumers will
benefit from having important nutrition information for the
approximately 30 per cent of calories consumed away from home.
Risks:
Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total calories on
foods prepared outside the home and spend almost half of their food
dollars on such foods. Unlike packaged foods that are labeled with
nutrition information, foods in restaurants, for the most part, do not
have nutrition information. Completion of this rulemaking will provide
consumers information about the nutritional content of food to empower
them to make healthier food choices.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Geraldine A. June
Supervisor, Product Evaluation and Labeling Team
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(HFS-820)
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1802
Fax: 301 436-2636
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG57
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
50. 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 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.
Statement of Need:
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, records
and reports for the production of infant formula. This proposal was
issued in response to the
[[Page 79528]]
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 was extended on June 27, 2003 and ended on August 26, 2003. The
comment period was reopened on August 1, 2006 and ended on September
15, 2006.
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 section
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, Apr. 30,
1982), and infant formula quality control procedures in subpart B of 21
CFR part 106 (47 FR 17016, Apr. 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, Jan. 14, 1985; 50 FR 48183, Nov. 22, 1985; and 50 FR
45106, Oct. 30, 1985).
In 1986, Congress, as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-570) (the 1986 amendments), amended section 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 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 (secs. 412(f) and (g) of the act) by establishing subpart E in
21 CFR part 107 (54 FR 4006, Jan. 27, 1989). In 1991, the Agency
implemented the provisions on record and record retention requirements
by revising 21 CFR 106.100 (56 FR 66566, Dec. 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 06/00/11
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
[[Page 79529]]
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
51. MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING; ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 321, 331, 351, 352, 360c, 360e, 360i to 360j, 371, 374, 381,
393; 42 USC 264, 271
CFR Citation:
21 CFR 803
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its postmarket
medical device reporting (MDR) 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.
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 final 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:
There are two alternatives. The first alternative is to allow the
voluntary submission of electronic MDRs. If a substantial number of
reporters fail to voluntarily submit electronic MDRs, FDA will not
obtain the benefits of standardized formats and quicker access to
medical device adverse event data. The second alternative is to allow
small entities more time to comply. Because so many device companies
are small entities, this would significantly postpone the benefits of
the rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The principal benefit would be to public health because the increased
speed in the processing and analysis of 173,000 medical device reports
currently submitted annually on paper. In addition, requiring
electronic submission would reduce FDA annual operating costs by $1.9
million and generate industry savings of about $9.8 million.
The total one-time cost for modifying SOPs and establishing electronic
submission capabilities is estimated to range from $81.4 million to
$101.0 million. Annually recurring costs totaled $8.8 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 06/00/11
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:
Nancy Pirt
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
WO 66 Room 4438
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 796-6248
Fax: 301 847-8145
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF86
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
52. 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:
This rule will convert registration and listing to a paperless process.
However, for those companies that do not have access to the Web, FDA
will offer an avenue by which they can register, list, and update
information with a paper submission. The rule also will amend part 807
to reflect the timeframes for device establishment registration and
listing established by sections 222 and 223 of Food and Drug
Administration Amendment Act (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 amending 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 amending 21 CFR part 807 to reflect
[[Page 79530]]
the requirements in section 321 of the BT Act for foreign
establishments to furnish additional information as part of their
registration. This rule will 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 03/26/10 75 FR 14510
NPRM Comment Period End 06/24/10
Final Rule 09/00/11
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:
Nancy Pirt
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
WO 66 Room 4438
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Phone: 301 796-6248
Fax: 301 847-8145
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AF88
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
53. REQUIREMENTS FOR LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES: NOTIFICATION
OF FACILITY CLOSURE (CMS-3230-IFC)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148, sec 6113
CFR Citation:
42 CFR 483; 42 CFR 488; 42 CFR 489
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, March 23, 2011.
Abstract:
This rule would ensure that, in the case of a facility closure, any
individual who is the administrator of the facility provides written
notification of closure and the plan for the relocation of residents at
least 60 days prior to the impending closure, or if the facility's
participation in Medicare or Medicaid is terminated, not later than the
date the HHS Secretary determines appropriate.
Statement of Need:
Section 6113 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) amends the Act by
setting forth certain requirements for LTC facility closures to ensure
that, among other things, in the case of a facility closure, any
individual who is the administrator of the facility provides written
notification of the closure and a plan for the relocation of residents
at least 60 days prior to the impending closure or, if the Secretary
terminates the facility's participation in Medicare or Medicaid, not
later than the date the Secretary determines appropriate.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Sections 1819(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) for NFs and
1919 (b)(1)(A) for SNFs state that a skilled nursing facility must care
for its residents in such a manner and in such an environment as will
promote maintenance or enhancement of the quality of life of each
resident. Sections 1819(c)(2)(A) and 1919 (c)(2)(A) of the Act state
that, in general, with certain specified exceptions, a nursing facility
must permit each resident to remain in the facility and must not
transfer or discharge the resident from the facility. Section 6113 of
ACA amends section 1128I of the Act by setting forth certain
requirements for LTC facility closures.
Alternatives:
None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The costs associated with the implementation of this rule are related
to the efforts made by each facility to develop a plan for closure. The
benefits would include the protection of residents' health and safety
and a smooth transition for residents who need to be relocated, as well
as their family members and facility staff.
Risks:
LTC facility closures have implications related to access, the quality
of care, availability of services, and the overall health of residents.
Without an organized process for facilities to follow in the event of a
nursing home closure, there is a risk to the health and safety of
residents.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 79531]]
Agency Contact:
Patricia Brooks
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Office of Clinical Standards and Quality
Mailstop S3-02-01
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4561
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AQ09
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
54. MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM: ACCOUNTABLE CARE
ORGANIZATIONS (CMS-1345-P)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148, sec 3022
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012.
Abstract:
This rule would propose a shared savings program for provider groups to
establish Accountable Care Organizations, agree to meet quality
measures, and share in savings generated for Medicare by meeting
certain benchmarks. Consistent with section 3022 of the Affordable Care
Act of 2010, the shared savings program must be established by January
1, 2012.
Statement of Need:
This rule would propose a shared savings program for provider groups to
establish Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), agree to meet quality
measures, and share in savings generated for Medicare by meeting
certain cost and quality benchmarks beginning January 1, 2012. This
rule is aimed at improving quality and Medicare expenditures for
Medicare beneficiaries and the Medicare program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 3022 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires the Secretary
to establish a shared savings program by January 1, 2012.
Alternatives:
None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Medicare expenditures will be adjusted beginning January 1, 2012.
Risks:
If this regulation is not published, the shared savings program will
not be established by January 1, 2012, as required by ACA, thereby
violating the statute.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Terri Postma
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C5-01-14
7500 Seurity Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4169
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AQ22
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
55. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL INPATIENT PROSPECTIVE
PAYMENT SYSTEMS FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS AND FY 2012 RATES AND TO THE
LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL PPS AND RY 2012 RATES (CMS-1518-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, 2011.
Final, Statutory, August 1, 2011.
Abstract:
This annual major proposed rule would revise the Medicare hospital
inpatient and long-term care prospective payment systems (IPPS) for
operating and capital-related costs. This proposed rule would implement
changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems.
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 FY 2012 IPPS and LTCHs at
least 60 days before October 1, 2011.
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 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, 2011.
Alternatives:
None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Total expenditures will be adjusted for FY 2012.
Risks:
If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient hospital and LTCH
services will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2011.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
[[Page 79532]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Tiffany Swygert
Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Acute Care, Hospital and
Ambulatory Policy Group
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop C4-25-11
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4642
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AQ24
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
56. REVISIONS TO PAYMENT POLICIES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE
SCHEDULE AND PART B FOR CY 2012 (CMS-1524-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, 2011.
The statute requires that the final rule be issued by November.
Abstract:
This proposed rule would revise payment polices under the physician fee
schedule, as well as other policy changes to payment under Part B.
These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after
January 1, annually.
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, 2011,
and an implementation date of January 1, 2012.
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 implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2012.
Risks:
If this regulation is not published timely, physician services will not
be paid appropriately.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Carol Bazell
Director, Division of Practitioner Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C4-03-06
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6960
Email: [email protected] gov
RIN: 0938-AQ25
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
57. CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT
SYSTEM AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR CY 2012 (CMS-
1525-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; 42 CFR 416 ; 42 CFR 419
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 1, 2011.
Abstract:
This 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. The proposed rule also describes changes to the amounts
and factors used to determine payment rates for services. In addition,
the rule proposes changes to the Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment
System list of services and rates.
Statement of Need:
Medicare pays over 4,000 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 the most recent claims data, proposes
new payment policies, 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. 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 2012 OPPS and ASC
payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 2012.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 1833 of the Social Security Act establishes Medicare payment
for hospital outpatient services and ASC services. The final rule
revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC payment system to implement
applicable statutory requirements. 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
[[Page 79533]]
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, 2012.
Alternatives:
None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2012.
Risks:
If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient hospital and ASC
services will not be paid appropriately beginning January 1, 2012.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Alberta Dwivedi
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop C5-01-26
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-0763
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AQ26
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
58. CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR NURSING HOMES (CMS-2435-F)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1302 and 1395 (hh)
CFR Citation:
42 CFR 488
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, March 23, 2011, 1 year after enactment of PPACA.
Abstract:
This rule revises and expands current Medicare and Medicaid regulations
regarding the imposition of civil money penalties by CMS when nursing
homes are not in compliance with Federal participation requirements.
Statement of Need:
The intent of this final rule is to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the nursing home enforcement process, particularly as
it relates to civil money penalties imposed by CMS. The new provisions
will reduce the delay between the identification of problems with
noncompliance and the effect of certain penalties that are intended to
motivate a nursing home to maintain continuous compliance with basic
expectations regarding the provision of quality care. The new
provisions also eliminate a facility's ability to significantly defer
the direct financial effect of an applicable civil monetary penalty
until after an often long litigation process. Specifically, this rule
would allow for civil money penalty reductions when facilities self-
report and promptly correct their noncompliance; offer, in cases where
civil money penalties are imposed, an independent informal dispute
resolution process where interests of both facilities and residents are
represented and balanced; provide for the establishment of an escrow
account where civil money penalties may be placed until any applicable
administrative appeal processes have been completed; and improve the
extent to which civil money penalties collected from Medicare
facilities can benefit nursing home residents. Through the proposed
revisions, we intend to directly promote and improve the health,
safety, and overall well-being of residents.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 6111 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 amended the Act to
incorporate specific provisions pertaining to the imposition and
collection of civil money penalties when facilities do not meet
Medicare and Medicaid participation requirements.
Alternatives:
None. This rule implements a statutory requirement. The proposed rule
was published on July 12, 2010. Alternatives proposed by commenters
will be considered in the preparation of the final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The regulatory impact statement provides that these regulatory
proposals would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal
governments or on the private sector. The anticipated benefits of this
regulation include stronger protections for nursing home residents,
improved due process for nursing homes, incentives for prompt self-
correction of deficiencies, and increased quality improvement.
Risks:
CMS does not expect any additional risks to providers and/or States as
a result of the implementation of this rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/12/10 75 FR 39641
NPRM Comment Period End 08/11/10
Final Action 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Dr. Lori Chapman
Acting Director, Division of State Demonstrations and Waivers
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21220
Phone: 410 786-9254
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AQ02
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
59. DESIGNATION RENEWAL OF HEAD START GRANTEES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, PL 110-134
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
[[Page 79534]]
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule would implement provisions of the Improving Head Start for
School Readiness Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134), requiring the Secretary
to develop a system that will evaluate each grantee's performance every
5 years to determine which grantees are providing services of such high
quality that they should be given another 5-year grant without needing
to recompete for the grant.
Statement of Need:
The Administration for Children and Families will issue rules to amend
45 CFR chapter XIII by adding a new part 1307, Policies and Procedures
for Designation Renewal of Head Start and Early Head Start Grantees, in
order to respond to the statutory requirements of The Improving Head
Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, which establishes that Head
Start grantees will be awarded grants for a 5-year period and only
grantees delivering high quality services will be given another 5-year
grant non-competitively. These regulations will describe the proposed
system for designation renewal, including a proposal to transition all
current continuous grants into 5-year grants over a 3-year period.
These regulations will encourage excellence, establish accountability
for poor performance, and open up Head Start to new energetic
organizations that may have great capacity to run high quality
programs.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 641 of the Head Start Act requires the Secretary of HHS to
develop and implement a system for designation renewal (e.g.,
Designation Renewal System (DRS)) to determine if a Head Start agency
is delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program that
meets the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs of the
children and families it serves and publish a notice in the Federal
Register describing a proposed system for designation renewal,
including a proposal for the transition to such system.
Alternatives:
The Administration for Children and Families is statutorily mandated to
develop and implement a system for designation renewal. As a precursor
to developing the system, the Head Start Act required the Secretary to
establish an Advisory Committee to inform the development of a DRS and
make recommendations to the Secretary. We are proposing to adopt the
majority of the Advisory Committee's recommendations in whole or with
minor modifications. In addition, we are considering additional and
alternative criteria to be incorporated into the system for designation
renewal, and ask for public comments regarding numerous provisions of
the rule, as described in the preamble.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The Agency estimates the costs of implementing the new reporting
requirements described in the rule will be approximately $20,000
annually. In addition, at least 25 percent of grantees reviewed in a
year will be required to submit a competitive application for a new 5-
year grant, at an estimated cost of less than $1,500 for each grantee.
In terms of benefits, the proposed system will fund only high-
performing grantees in order to ensure the best services for Head Start
children are provided and child outcomes are improved.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/22/10 75 FR 57704
NPRM Comment Period End 12/21/10
Final Action 09/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Collen Rathgeb
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20447
Phone: 202 205-7378
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0970-AC44
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Administration on Aging (AOA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
60. COMMUNITY LIVING ASSISTANCE SERVICES AND SUPPORTS
ENROLLMENT AND ELIGIBILITY RULES UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 111-148, sec 8002
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Department of Health and Human Services will issue rules to
implement the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS)
program included in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the rules
will define the enrollment and eligibility criteria for the program.
Participation in the program is voluntary.
Statement of Need:
About 14 million people spend more than $230 billion a year on long-
term services and supports to assist them with daily living. Four times
that many rely solely on unpaid care provided by family and friends.
Medicare does not pay for long-term care, and while Medicaid is the
largest public payer of these services, it is only available for people
with few other resources. The CLASS program represents a significant
new opportunity for all Americans to prepare themselves financially to
remain as independent as possible under a variety of future health
circumstances.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 8002 of Public Law 111-148 (Affordable Care Act) requires the
promulgation of regulations to implement the CLASS program.
Specifically, the law states, ``[t]he Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the CLASS program in
accordance with this title. Such regulations shall include provisions
to prevent fraud and abuse under the program.''
[[Page 79535]]
Alternatives:
Under the law, the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
actuaries and other experts, will develop at least three actuarially
sound benefit plans as alternatives for consideration for designation
by the Secretary as the CLASS Independence Benefit Plan. Under the law,
the Secretary will designate the final benefit plan by October 1, 2012.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The program will help Americans prepare themselves financially to
remain as independent as possible under a variety of future health
circumstances and their financial independence may help reduce spending
down to Medicaid. Costs to implement the proposed regulation have not
yet been estimated.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/11
Final Action 10/00/12
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Laura Lawrence
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration on Aging
Phone: 202 357-3469
RIN: 0985-AA07
BILLING CODE 4150-24-S
[[Page 79536]]
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, Public Law 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 2010
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 this year's fall regulatory plan
continue to address legislative initiatives including, but not limited
to, the following acts: The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007);
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA),
Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural Resources
Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the Security
and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public
Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-329
(Sep. 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 Agenda and The 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 12866, 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, 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 2010 Regulatory Plan for DHS 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), which have active regulatory programs.
In addition, it includes regulations from the Department's major
offices and directorates such as the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of the fall 2010 regulatory
plan for DHS regulatory components, as well as for DHS offices and
directorates.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administer
immigration benefits and services while protecting homeland security.
USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals who seek entry
through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and useful
information regarding the immigration process, promoting the values of
citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian protection.
Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS 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
extension 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 issue the following CNMI
final rules during fiscal year 2011: ``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
(DOJ) regulation ``Application of Immigration Regulations to the
CNMI.''
Improvements to the Immigration System
USCIS is currently engaged in a multi-year transformation effort to
create a more efficient, effective, and customer-focused organization
by improving our business processes and technology. In the coming
years, USCIS will publish several rules to facilitate that effort. To
improve customer service specifically, USCIS is pursuing a regulatory
initiative that will provide for selection of visa numbers by lottery
for H-1B petitions based on electronic registration.
Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to
Numerical Limitations
USCIS will propose a revised registration process for H-1B petitioners
who are subject to a numerical limit or ``cap.'' The rule would propose
to create a process by which USCIS would randomly select a sufficient
number of timely filed registrations to meet the applicable cap. Only
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
[[Page 79537]]
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
costs incurred by USCIS in 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 proposal 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 definition of
membership in a particular social group. This effort should provide
greater stability and clarity in this important area of the law.
Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal
DHS, in a joint rulemaking with DOJ, will propose amendments to
existing DHS and DOJ regulations to resolve ambiguity in the statutory
language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee resettlement,
temporary protected status, and withholding of removal of an applicant
who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the
persecution of others. The proposed rule would provide a limited
exception for persecutory actions taken by the applicant under duress
and clarify the required levels of the applicant's knowledge of the
persecution.
``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 human trafficking, 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 greater clarity to the law
enforcement community. In addition, publication of these rules will
inform the community about 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
one of the U.S. Government's most significant and important strengths
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. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2010
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies. The Coast Guard's
rulemaking projects support 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 and 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 also under shipboard conditions. These would include:
Pre-approval requirements, application requirements, land-based/
shipboard
[[Page 79538]]
testing requirements, design and construction requirements, electrical
requirements, engineering requirements, and piping requirements. This
requirement is intended to meet the requirements of the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA). 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. This
rulemaking supports maritime stewardship.
Outer Continental Shelf Activities
The Coast Guard is revising regulations to address new developments in
the offshore industry, to fully address existing legislation, to
effectively implement interagency agreements, to respond to comments
received from the notice of proposed rulemaking (Outer Continental
Shelf Activities, 64 FR 68416 (Dec. 7, 1999), and to update security
requirements and procedures. This proposed rule would improve the level
of safety in the workplace and security for personnel and units engaged
in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities. The Coast Guard is the
lead Federal agency for OCS workplace safety and health--other than for
matters generally related to drilling and production that are regulated
by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement--
on facilities and vessels engaged in the exploration for, or
development or production of, minerals on the OCS. The last major
revision of the Coast Guard's OCS regulations occurred in 1982. At that
time, the offshore industry was not as technologically advanced as it
is today. Offshore activities were in relatively shallow water near
land, where help was readily available during emergency situations. The
regulations required only basic equipment, primarily for lifesaving
appliances and hand-held portable fire extinguishers. Since 1982, the
requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, have not kept pace with
the changing offshore technology or the safety problems it creates as
OCS activities extend to deeper water (10,000 feet) and move farther
offshore (150 miles). This rulemaking would reassess all of the Coast
Guard's current OCS regulations in order to help make the OCS a safer
workplace, and it supports the Commandant's strategic goals of marine
safety and environmental stewardship.
Updates to 33 CFR Subchapter H--Maritime Security.
The intent of this rulemaking is to strengthen security of our Nation's
ports, vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities by
incorporating clarifications realized since the original Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulations of 2003, Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) requirements,
and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.This
proposed rule would incorporate feedback received from industry
stakeholders, Coast Guard field units, and the public since the
original MTSA regulations came into effect in 2003. The proposed rule
would also consolidate into regulation appropriate actions promulgated
in a series of Policy Advisory Council (PAC) papers, Navigation and
Inspection Circulars (NVICs), and MTSA Help Desk responses; address
screening standards for port facilities and vessels; establish security
training standards that will be modeled after the courses developed by
the Maritime Administration (MARAD); and the training standards
(mandatory and non-mandatory) and courses developed by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO). It would also update
existing regulations regarding the areas of maritime security plans,
facility and vessel security plans, and facility exercise requirements
in the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This rulemaking supports the Commandant's
strategic goal of maritime security.
Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding
Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard
This rule would restate the preemptive effect of existing Coast Guard
regulations and articulate the assessment framework for evaluating the
preemptive effect of future regulations. This rule would not alter the
preemptive effect of any regulation: It would merely restate the
existing law. By clarifying the preemptive effect of Coast Guard
regulations, the Coast Guard intends to increase transparency,
encourage appropriate State regulation, and avoid or reduce litigation
related to State and local attempts to regulate in preempted areas. In
doing so, the Coast Guard intends to comply with the May 2009
presidential memoranda on preemption, and on transparency and open
government, and also intends to reinforce a uniform maritime regulatory
regime that is predictable and useful for maritime interests. The Coast
Guard expects no additional cost impacts to the industry from this
rule, because it only restates and clarifies the status of Federal and
State law as it exists.
The following Coast Guard rulemakings may be of particular interest to
small entities:
Inspection of Towing Vessels
Based on preliminary analysis, the Coast Guard determined 1,059
operators of 5,208 uninspected towing vessels would incur additional
costs from this rulemaking and over 92 percent of these entities are
small businesses. This rulemaking would require operators of previously
uninspected towing vessels to incur the costs of becoming regulated
under a new inspection regime.
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in
U.S. Waters
Based on preliminary analysis in the notice of proposed rulemaking (74
FR 44632), the Coast Guard determined 850 U.S. operators of 2,616
vessels would incur additional costs from this rulemaking and over 57
percent of these entities are small businesses. This rulemaking would
require operators to purchase and install ballast water management
systems costing between $258,000 and $419,000 per vessel, depending
vessel and technology type.
Updates to 33 CFR Subchapter H--Maritime Security
Based on preliminary analysis, the Coast Guard determined that 55
percent of operators affected by this rulemaking are small entities.
This rulemaking would require operators to incur additional costs for
training and exercise provisions.
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 is also responsible for administering laws concerning the
[[Page 79539]]
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 United States;
maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. 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 intends to finalize several rules 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 (ESTA).
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 field 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.
On August 9, 2010, CBP published an interim final rule amending the
ESTA regulations to require ESTA applicants to pay a congressionally
mandated fee which is the sum of two amounts: a $10 travel promotion
fee for an approved ESTA and a $4 operational fee for the use of ESTA
set by the Secretary of Homeland Security to, at a minimum, ensure the
recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the ESTA. CBP
is working to finalize the 2008 and 2010 interim final rules during
fiscal year 2011.
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 Public Law No. 109-347, section 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. 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.
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 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
flexibility provided in the interim final rule. CBP intends to publish
a final rule during fiscal year 2011.
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
Consolidated National 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 others 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 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. CBP intends to issue a final rule
during fiscal year 2011.
Global Entry Program
Pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, CBP issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the fall of 2009, 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
proposed 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. CBP intends to issue a
final rule during fiscal year 2011.
The rules discussed above foster DHS' mission. Under section 403(1) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service,
including
[[Page 79540]]
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 of the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States Customs
Service relating to customs revenue function 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 2011,
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate
legitimate trade and implement trade benefit program. CBP regulations
regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the regulatory
plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 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 2011, 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) (Pub. L. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006), and to implement lessons
learned from past events.
Public Assistance Program regulations
FEMA will work to revise the Public Assistance Program regulations in
44 CFR part 206 to reflect changes made to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by PKEMRA, the Pets
Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Pub. L.
No. 109-308, Oct. 6, 2006), the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006
(Pub. L. No. 109-218, Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Pub. L. No.
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 689(h) of PKEMRA, thus allowing private
nonprofit educational facilities to be eligible for restoration
funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to available assistance
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.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2011.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the principal
criminal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security and
one of the three Department components charged with the civil
enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. ICE's primary mission is
to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our
borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law
governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
During fiscal year 2011, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions that
improve two critical subject areas: The detention of aliens who are
subject to final orders of removal and the processes for the Student
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal
ICE will improve the post order custody review process in a final rule
related to the continued 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) and Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005),
as well as make changes pursuant to the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002. During fiscal year 2011, ICE will also issue a
companion notice of proposed rulemaking that will allow the public an
opportunity to comment on new sections of the custody determination
process not previously published for comment.
Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program
ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing a final Optional
Practical Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to comments on the
OPT Interim Final Rule (IFR) published on June 9, 2008. 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 degree and who accept employment with
employers who participate in USCIS' E-Verify employment verification
program.
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, Public
Law No. 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
[[Page 79541]]
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, which the Department hopes to issue
during fiscal year 2011.
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
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 a notice of proposed rulemaking 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 No.110-329 (Sep. 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 as soon as practicable.
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 2011, 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 the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007) that TSA
establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on
passenger aircraft by August 3, 2010. To assist in carrying out this
mandate, TSA has established a voluntary program under which it
certifies 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 (GA) by
expanding the scope of current requirements and by adding new
requirements for certain 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
enhance aviation security of certain GA aircraft to undertake other
security measures. 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 Surface Mode Employees
TSA will propose regulations to enhance the security of several non-
aviation modes of transportation. In particular, TSA will propose
regulations requiring freight railroad carriers, public transportation
agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger
railroad carriers, over-the-road bus operators, and motor carriers
transporting certain hazardous materials to conduct security training
for front line employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408
(Public Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over
the Road (OTR) Buses) of the 9/11 Act. The NPRM will define which
employees must be trained under these provisions, in compliance with
the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions of
the 9/11 Act. Some parts of the proposed rule would extend beyond the
requirements of the 9/11 Act; those portions are authorized by the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
Aircraft Repair Station Security.
TSA will finalize a rule requiring repair stations that are
certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration under 14 CFR part
145 to adopt and implement standard security programs and to comply
with security directives issued by TSA. TSA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking on November 18, 2009. The final rule will also codify the
scope of TSA's existing inspection program and 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.
Standardized 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
[[Page 79542]]
of the security threat assessments (STA) of individuals that TSA
conducts. The scope of the rulemaking will include transportation
workers from almost all modes of transportation who are required to
undergo an STA by a regulatory program and new programs, including
those covered under the 9/11 Act. In addition, TSA will propose
equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs and credentials for some
personnel. TSA plans to identify new efficiencies in processing STAs
and ways to streamline existing regulations by simplifying language and
removing redundancies.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2011.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2011
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise
DHS' fall 2010 regulatory plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
61. 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 ``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, Public Law 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 would 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 would be much more difficult for terrorists to
obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive
devices. 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, Public Law 110-161, authorizes and
requires this rulemaking.
Alternatives:
The Department of Homeland Security is required by statute to publish
regulations implementing the Secure 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:
A proposed rule registering certain buyers and sellers of ammonium
nitrate would have 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 would 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.
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
[[Page 79543]]
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 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
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:
Todd Klessman
Acting Deputy Director, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
Department of Homeland Security
Ballston 1 - 5th floor
Room 5030
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: 703 235-4921
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1601-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--OS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
62. 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 215.8
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 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 10-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 04/00/11
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 79544]]
Agency Contact:
Long D. Kaiser
Policy Analyst, National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD),
US-VISIT
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 202 295-0735
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
63. 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 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 United States. 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
[[Page 79545]]
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 Comment Period End 01/22/01
NPRM 03/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/11
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
Suite 3300, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1663
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
64. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT FOR PETITIONERS SEEKING TO FILE H-1B
PETITIONS ON BEHALF OF ALIENS 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.
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.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
USCIS estimates that this rule will result in a net benefit to society.
Currently, employers submit a petition, at great expense, without any
certainty that an H-1B cap number will ultimately be allocated to the
beneficiary named on the petition. The new mandatory, Internet-based
registration system allows employers to complete a much shorter and
less expensive registration process for consideration of available H-1B
cap numbers. The new system will also relieve a significant
administrative burden and expense from USCIS.
This rule will reduce costs for some employers and increase them for
others. For employers that are not allocated a cap number and therefore
do not ultimately file a petition, there will be a significant cost
savings. Employers that are allocated a cap number and ultimately file
a petition will experience the new and additional cost of filing the
registration. Additionally, USCIS will incur additional costs to
implement and maintain the registration system. USCIS has weighed the
benefits and costs associated with this rule and determined that the
benefits to society outweigh the costs.
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 01/00/11
NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/11
[[Page 79546]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
USCIS 2443-08
Agency Contact:
Claudia F. Young
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Service Center Operations
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8163
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
65. EXCEPTION TO THE PERSECUTION BAR FOR ASYLUM, REFUGEE, AND
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS, AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; PL 107-26; PL 110-229;
. . .
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 244; 8 CFR 1244; . . .
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This joint rule proposes amendments to Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to describe the
circumstances under which an applicant will continue to be eligible for
asylum, refugee, or temporary protected status, special rule
cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act, and withholding of removal, even if DHS or DOJ has
determined that the applicant's actions contributed, in some way, to
the persecution of others. The purpose of this rule is to resolve
ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility for asylum,
refugee, and temporary protected status of an applicant who ordered,
incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of
others. The proposed amendment would provide a limited exception for
actions taken by the applicant under duress and clarify the required
levels of the applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
Statement of Need:
This rule resolves ambiguity in the statutory language precluding
eligibility for asylum, refugee, and temporary protected status of an
applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in
the persecution of others. The proposed amendment would provide a
limited exception for actions taken by the applicant under duress and
clarify the required levels of the applicant's knowledge of the
persecution.
Summary of Legal Basis:
In Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 (2009), the Supreme Court
addressed whether the persecutor bar should apply where an alien's
actions were taken under duress. DHS believe that this is an
appropriate subject for rulemaking and propose to amend the applicable
regulations to set out their interpretation of the statute. In
developing this regulatory initiative, DHS has carefully considered the
purpose and history behind enactment of the persecutor bar, including
its international law origins and the criminal law concepts upon which
they are based.
Alternatives:
DHS did consider the alternative of not publishing a rulemaking on
these issues. To leave this important area of the law without an
administrative interpretation, however, would confuse adjudicators and
the public.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The programs affected by this rule exist so that the United States may
respond effectively to global humanitarian situations and assist people
who are in need. USCIS provides a number of humanitarian programs and
protection to assist individuals in need of shelter or aid from
disasters, oppression, emergency medical issues, and other urgent
circumstances. This rule will advance the humanitarian goals of the
asylum/refugee program, and other specialized programs. The main
benefits of such tend to be intangible and difficult to quantify in
economic and monetary terms. These forms of relief have not been
available to certain persecutors. This rule will allow an exception to
this bar from protection for applicants who can meet the appropriate
evidentiary standard. Consequently, this rule may result in a small
increase in the number of applicants for humanitarian programs. To the
extent a small increase in applicants occurs, there could be additional
fee costs incurred by these applicants.
Risks:
If DHS were not to publish a regulation, the public would face a
lengthy period of confusion on these issues. There could also be
inconsistent interpretations of the statutory language, leading to
significant litigation and delay for the affected public.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Molly Groom
Office of the Chief Counsel
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20259
Phone: 202 272-1400
Fax: 202 272-1408
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB89
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
66. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS; ELIGIBILITY FOR 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
[[Page 79547]]
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 law enforcement with their
investigation or prosecution of 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. 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, as amended, 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 to applicants 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:
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 09/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, 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 1200
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Fax: 202 272-1480
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
67. 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
[[Page 79548]]
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 in the first year, $1.9
million in the second year, and an average about $32 million 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;
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 09/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
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 1200
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Fax: 202 272-1480
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
68. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF 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:
None
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
[[Page 79549]]
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 stay 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 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
applicants 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 09/00/11
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 1200
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Fax: 202 272-1480
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
69. E-2 NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR ALIENS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS WITH LONG-TERM INVESTOR STATUS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a
[[Page 79550]]
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 214
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security regulations
governing E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investors to establish procedures for
classifying long-term investors in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) as E-2 nonimmigrants. This final rule implements
the CNMI nonimmigrant investor visa provisions of the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act of 2008, extending the immigration laws of the
United States to the CNMI.
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 to 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 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Additional Information:
CIS No. 2458-08
Agency Contact:
Kevin J. Cummings
Chief of Business and Foreign Workers Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office of Policy and Strategy
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529-2140
Phone: 202 272-8410
Fax: 202 272-1542
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
70. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL WORKER
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 5-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
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End
Extended 12/09/09 74 FR 64997
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/08/10
Final Action 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
State
[[Page 79551]]
Agency Contact:
Kevin J. Cummings
Chief of Business and Foreign Workers Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office of Policy and Strategy
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529-2140
Phone: 202 272-8410
Fax: 202 272-1542
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
71. APPLICATION OF IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
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:
On October 28, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) published a joint interim final rule in the
Federal Register 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
finalizes the interim rule with additional changes to provisions
concerning adjustment of status and change of status of aliens in the
CNMI, immigrant petitions for multinational executives, acceptable
documents for employment eligibility verification (Form I-9), and the
Northern Marianas identification card. It is intended that such changes
will ameliorate any adverse impact that implementation of the CNRA may
have on CNMI employers and alien workers.
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. 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
Correction 12/22/09 74 FR 67969
Final Action 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
CIS 2460-08
Agency Contact:
Kevin Cummings
Branch Chief, Business and Trade Services
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Second Floor
Office of Program and Regulations Development
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8412
Fax: 202 272-1452
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1615-AB77
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
72. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ACTIVITIES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
43 USC 1333(d)(1); 43 USC 1348(c); 43 USC 1356; DHS Delegation No
0170.1
CFR Citation:
33 CFR 140 to 147
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for workplace safety and
health, other than for matters generally related to drilling and
production that are regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) on facilities and vessels engaged
in the exploration for, or development or production of, minerals on
the OCS. This project would revise the regulations on Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) activities to: 1) Add new requirements for fixed OCS
facilities for lifesaving, fire protection, training, hazardous
materials used as stores and accommodation spaces; and 2) address
foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities to comply with requirements
similar to those imposed on U.S. vessels similarly engaged. This
project would affect the owners and operators of facilities and vessels
engaged in offshore activities.
Statement of Need:
The last major revision of Coast Guard OCS regulations occurred in
1982. At
[[Page 79552]]
that time, the offshore industry was not as technologically advanced as
it is today. Offshore activities were in relatively shallow water near
land, where help was readily available during emergency situations. The
equipment regulations required only basic equipment, primarily for
lifesaving appliances and hand-held portable fire extinguishers. Since
1982, the requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, have not kept
pace with the changing offshore technology or the safety problems
created as OCS activities extend to deeper water (10,000 feet) and move
farther offshore (150 miles). This rulemaking reassesses all of our
current OCS regulations in order to help make the OCS a safer
workplace.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or
amend these regulations is provided under 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C.
1333(d)(1), 1347(c), 1348(c), 1356; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 145.100 also issued under 14 U.S.C. 664
and 31 U.S.C. 9701.
Alternatives:
The Coast Guard considered filling the shortfall in existing OCS
regulations by extending the current vessel and Mobile Offshore
Drilling Unit regulations. This approach was rejected after concluding
that the differences between fixed and floating units made this
approach impractical. We also considered requiring compliance with
industry standards. Those standards, though, do not cover all of the
areas needing regulation. The new rule would adopt available consensus
standards where appropriate.
Nonregulatory alternatives, such as agency policy documents and
voluntary acceptance of industry standards were also considered. They
were also rejected because enforceable regulations are necessary in
order to carry out the relevant statutes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The Coast Guard is currently estimating the costs and benefits
associated with this rulemaking. Industry would incur additional costs
as a result of provisions for training, firefighting, lifesaving, and
monitoring of unsafe conditions. This proposed rule supports the
Commandant's strategic goals of marine safety and environmental
stewardship and is designed to help make the OCS a safer workplace by
preventing accidents or reducing the consequences of accidents on the
OCS. In addition, the proposed rule will include measures that meet the
changing offshore technology and the safety problems it creates as OCS
activities extend to deeper water and move farther offshore.
Risks:
The extensive revisions to health and safety requirements for OCS units
in this rule would substantially reduce the risk of injury or illness
on those units.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments 06/27/95 60 FR 33185
Comment Period End 09/25/95
NPRM 12/07/99 64 FR 68416
NPRM Correction 02/22/00 65 FR 8671
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 03/16/00 65 FR 14226
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 06/30/00 65 FR 40559
NPRM Comment Period End 11/30/00
Supplemental NPRM 08/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Docket Numbers: The notice of request for comments published June 27,
1995, was assigned Coast Guard docket number 95-016. Following the
request for comments, that docket was terminated. This project
continues under Docket No. USCG-1998-3868 and RIN 1625-AA18. This
docket may be viewed online by going to www.regulations.gov.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Kevin Y. Pekarek
Program Manager
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant, CG-5222
2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1386
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AA18
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
73. INSPECTION OF TOWING VESSELS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
46 USC 3103; 46 USC 3301; 46 USC 3306; 46 USC 3308; 46 USC 3316; 46 USC
3703; 46 USC 8104; 46 USC 8904; DHS Delegation No 0170.1
CFR Citation:
46 CFR 2; 46 CFR 15; 46 CFR 136 to 144
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, January 13, 2011.
On October 15, 2010, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 was
enacted as Public Law 111-281. It requires that a proposed rule be
issued within 90 days after enactment and that a final rule be issued
within 1 year of enactment.
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
auditors and surveyors, along with standards for construction,
operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping.
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; 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),
Public Law 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028, (Aug. 9, 2004), established new
[[Page 79553]]
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). We do not believe, however, that this approach would
recognize the 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 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 owners and operators of towing vessels would incur
additional costs from this rulemaking. The cost of this rulemaking
would involve provisions for safety management systems, standards for
construction, operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and
recordkeeping. 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 vessel accidents result in fatalities,
injuries, property damage, pollution, and delays.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
State
Additional Information:
The Regulations.gov docket number is USCG-2006-24412.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Michael Harmon
Program Manager, CG-5222
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1427
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AB06
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
74. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESTATEMENT REGARDING
PREEMPTION FOR CERTAIN REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE COAST GUARD
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
14 USC 2; 14 USC 91; 33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1231; 33 USC 1903(b); 46 USC
3203; 46 USC 3306; 46 USC 3703; 46 USC 3717; 46 USC 4302; 46 USC 6101;
DHS Delegation No 0170.1
CFR Citation:
33 CFR 1.06
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The proposed rule will operate in two ways. First, it will describe the
Coast Guard's interpretation of the preemptive effect of certain
current Coast Guard regulations. This analysis will apply to previously
promulgated
[[Page 79554]]
regulations even if a complete description of federalism implications
was clearly articulated in the development of the regulation. Second,
the rule will set forth criteria and a process that the Coast Guard
will undertake in future regulatory projects for evaluating the
preemptive impact of those regulations. This part of the analysis is
prospective in nature and will lay out a roadmap for future regulatory
projects regarding federalism and preemption principles. This
rulemaking will support the Coast Guard's broad role and responsibility
of further enhancing maritime stewardship by reinforcing a uniform
maritime regulatory regime that is predictable and useful for maritime
interests.
Statement of Need:
In light of recent Federal court cases and the President's May 20,
2009, memorandum regarding preemption, the Coast Guard believes that a
clear agency statement of the preemptive impact of our regulations,
particularly those regulations issued prior to the promulgation of E.O.
13132, can be of great benefit to State and local governments, the
public, and regulated entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to
issue a general statement of preemption policy, coupled with specific
statements of policy regarding regulations issued under the authority
of statutes with preemptive effect, including, among others, the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1221 et.
seq.). The Coast Guard proposes to publish these policies in a new
section 1.06 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to allow
for easy access by interested persons and parties.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change,
revise, or amend these regulations are provided under 14 U.S.C. 2 and
91; 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231, and 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3203, 3306, 3703,
3717, 4302, and 6101; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
Alternatives:
The Coast Guard considered alternative mechanisms for restating the
preemptive effect of regulations, including the use of a notice of
policy. These methods would not provide the same level of transparency
as codification in the Code of Federal Regulations, however, because
they would not be as readily located by State and local government or
other members of the public. They also would not satisfy the
President's May 20, 2009, memorandum regarding preemption, which
directs agencies to include preemption provisions in the codified
regulation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
We expect no additional cost impacts to the industry from this proposed
rule, because it only restates and clarifies the status of Federal and
State law as it exists.
Risks:
Not applicable to this rulemaking.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2008-1259. The docket can
be found at www.regulations.gov.
URL For More Information:
http://www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
http://www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
LCDR Stephen DaPonte
Program Manager
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant (CG-0941)
2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7121
Washington, DC 20593-7121
Phone: 202 372-3865
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
75. UPDATES TO MARITIME SECURITY
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
33 USC 1226; 33 USC 1231; 46 USC ch 701; 50 USC 191 and 192; EO 12656;
3 CFR 1988 Comp, p 585; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 33 CFR 6.04-11; 33 CFR 6.14; 33
CFR 6.16; 33 CFR 6.19; DHS Delegation No 0170.1
CFR Citation:
33 CFR subchapter H
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Coast Guard proposes certain additions, changes, and amendments to
33 CFR, subchapter H. Subchapter H is comprised of parts 101 thru 106.
Subchapter H implements the major provisions of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002. This rulemaking is the first major
revision to subchapter H. The proposed changes would further enhance
the security of our Nation's ports, vessels, facilities, and Outer
Continental Shelf facilities and incorporate requirements from
legislation implemented since the original publication of these
regulations in 2003. This rulemaking has international interest because
of the close relationship between subchapter H and the International
Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS).
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking is needed to incorporate Coast Guard Policy Advisory
Council (PAC) decisions on the interpretation of regulations, guidance
provided in response to questions to the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) hotline, and to implement various
requirements found in the Security and Accountability for Every Port
Act of 2006 and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of
2006. In addition, this rulemaking is needed to incorporate
recommendations from the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee.
It also incorporates various U.S. Maritime Administration and
International Maritime Organization voluntary consensus standards
related to maritime security training.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The fundamental legal basis for subchapter H remains the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002 as amended by the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.
Alternatives:
The Coast Guard is currently evaluating a number of alternatives based
on applicability and risk (threat,
[[Page 79555]]
vulnerability, and consequence). However, an overall update to make
necessary changes to subchapter H and address improvements resulting
from our experience since 2003 is prudent.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The Coast Guard is currently estimating the costs associated with this
rulemaking. Industry would incur additional costs as a result of
provisions for standardized training requirements, updates to security
plans and other documentation, and full-scale exercises requirements
for high-risk facilities. The potential benefit from these provisions
is reduction in risk of security incidents. This rulemaking expands and
improves competencies associated with Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).
MDA is the effective understanding of anything associated with the
global maritime domain that could impact the United States' security,
safety, economy, or environment. The proposed rule would improve MDA
through training, exercise, and security plan enhancements. As a
result, the primary benefit of the proposed rule would result from
reducing the risk of a Transportation Security Incident (TSI) and
therefore averting or mitigating the economic and environmental
consequences of a TSI.
Risks:
With this rulemaking, the Coast Guard seeks to maintain the risk
reduction goals established with the promulgation of the original MTSA
regulations and further reduce risks by incorporating provisions
related to more recent legislation and warranted by our experience with
subchapter H since 2003.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
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:
The Regulations.gov docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2007-
0009.
URL For More Information:
http://www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
http://www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
LCDR Loan O'Brien
Project Manager
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant, (CG-5442)
2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7581
Washington, DC 20593-7581
Phone: 877 687-2243
Fax: 202 372-1906
Email: loan.t.o'[email protected]
RIN: 1625-AB38
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
76. STANDARDS FOR LIVING ORGANISMS IN SHIPS' BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED
IN U.S. WATERS
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 adds performance standards to 33 CFR part 151, subparts
C and D, for discharges of ballast water. It supports the Coast Guard's
broad roles and responsibilities of maritime safety and maritime
stewardship. This project is economically significant.
Statement of Need:
The unintentional introduction 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:
The Coast Guard 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 3 years based
on the best scientific information available to the Coast Guard at the
time of that review.
On August 28, 2009, the Coast Guard published the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Standards for Living Organisms in Ships'
Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters in the Federal Register (74 FR
44632). The proposed rule included 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 (one that is
one thousand times more stringent). 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
[[Page 79556]]
the IMO standard can practicably be implemented.
Based on the comments received, we plan to move forward swiftly with a
final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This rulemaking would affect certain vessels operating in U.S. waters
seeking to discharge ballast water into waters of the United States.
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
existing vessels. Operating and maintenance costs are substantially
less than the installation costs.
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.
The Coast Guard issued a preliminary regulatory analysis of the costs,
benefits, and other impacts of the 2009 NPRM. In this preliminary
analysis, we estimated the total phase-one costs to be about $1.18
billion over a 10-year period of analysis (this and other values below
at a 7 percent discount rate). As previously described, the
implementation costs vary by year. We estimated the annualized cost
over the same period to be approximately $168 million per year. We did
not provide cost estimates for the phase-two costs in this preliminary
analysis since data and information was not available at that time for
technology that would meet the anticipated phase-two standard (1,000 x
the IMO standard). In the same preliminary analysis, we estimated
annualized benefits (damages avoided) for phase one are potentially as
high as $553 million, with a mid-range estimate of $165 million to $282
million per year. We estimated total phase-one benefits to be as high
as $3.88 billion, with a mid-range estimate of $1.16 billion to $1.98
billion over a 10-year period of analysis.
The Coast Guard has received public comments on the impacts of the NPRM
and will be incorporating these comments into a revised Regulatory
Analysis for the next rulemaking publication.
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 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
State
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Additional Information:
The Regulations.gov docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2001-
10486.
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 Second Street SW., STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1433
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1625-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
77. 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
[[Page 79557]]
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
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 intends to improve 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 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
importers' 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.
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).
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 decisionmakers 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
[[Page 79558]]
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 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
Correction 07/14/09 74 FR 33920
Correction 12/24/09 74 FR 68376
Final Action 03/00/11
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
78. 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
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
[[Page 79559]]
determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States
under the VWP.
Costs 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.
Costs 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 U.S.C. 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
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 03/00/11
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.
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]
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA83
RIN: 1651-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
79. 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
[[Page 79560]]
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
recordkeeping technologies, the risk of terrorists entering the United
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.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Global Entry program is based on section 7208(k) of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as
amended by section 565 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a program to
expedite the screening and processing of pre-approved low risk air
travelers into the United States.
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 5-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 1 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 02/00/11
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
80. 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, PL 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
[[Page 79561]]
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
Technical Amendment;
Change of
Implementation Date 05/28/09 74 FR 25387
Final Action 03/00/11
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]
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA81
RIN: 1651-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
81. 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 (NPRM), 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 type of 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.
Additionally, in the SNPRM, TSA plans to propose security measures for
foreign aircraft operators. U.S. and foreign operators would implement
commensurate measures under the proposed rule.
Statement of Need:
This rule would enhance current security measures and might apply
security measures currently in place for operators of certain types of
aircraft to operators of other aircraft, including general aviation
operators. 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 in 49 CFR part 1544 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. Therefore, TSA is
preparing a SNPRM which proposes to establish new security measures for
operators, including general aviation operators, that are not covered
under TSA's current regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44903.
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.
As stated above, TSA is revising this proposed rule and preparing a
SNPRM. Aircraft operators, passengers, and TSA would incur costs to
comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. TSA is currently
evaluating the costs of the revised rule which will be published in the
SNPRM.
[[Page 79562]]
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
Notice--Public Meetings;
Requests for Comments 12/28/08 73 FR 77045
Supplemental NPRM 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
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
82. 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
[[Page 79563]]
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:
TSA will estimate the costs that the public transportation agencies and
passenger railroads covered by this proposed rule would incur following
its implementation. These costs will include estimates for the
following elements: 1) creating or modifying a security training
program and submitting it to TSA; 2) training (initial and recurrent)
all security-sensitive employees; 3) maintaining records of employee
training; 4) being available for inspections; 5) providing information
on security coordinators and alternates; and 6) reporting security
concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to
incur with the implementation of this rule.
The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance
United States surface transportation security by reducing the
vulnerability of public transportation agencies and passenger railroads
to terrorist activity through the training of security-sensitive
employees. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off
between the beneficial effects of the Security Training NPRM and the
costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses
scenarios extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk
Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the Security
Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in
order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to justify the estimated
costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with varying levels of
risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To maintain
consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that
used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS rules.
After estimating the total consequence of each scenario by monetizing
lives lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement and clean-up, and
lost revenue, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the
NPRM for public transportation and passenger rail to calculate a
breakeven annual likelihood of attack.
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 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Morvarid Zolghadr
Branch Chief, Policy and Plans, Mass Transit and Passenger Rail
Security
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-113S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2957
Fax: 571 227-0729
Email: [email protected]
Nicholas (Nick) Acheson
Sr. Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-341N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5474
Fax: 703 603-0302
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
83. 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.
[[Page 79564]]
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:
TSA will estimate the costs that the freight rail systems covered by
this proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These
costs will include estimates for the following elements: 1) Creating or
modifying a security training program and submitting it to TSA; 2)
training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive employees; 3)
maintaining records of employee training; 4) being available for
inspections; 5) providing information on security coordinators and
alternates; and 6) reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate
the costs TSA itself would expect to incur with the implementation of
this rule.
The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance
United States surface transportation security by reducing the
vulnerability of freight railroad systems to terrorist activity through
the training of security-sensitive employees. TSA uses a break-even
analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the
Security Training NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking.
This break-even analysis uses scenarios extracted from the TSA
Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the
degree to which the Security Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk
of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to
justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with
varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To
maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar
to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS
rules.
After estimating the consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives
lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement and clean-up, and lost
revenue, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM
for freight rail to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.
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 03/00/11
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]
Nicholas (Nick) Acheson
Sr. Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-341N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5474
Fax: 703 603-0302
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
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
84. 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
[[Page 79565]]
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).
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:
TSA will estimate the costs that the commercial over-the-road bus
(OTRB) entities covered by this proposed rule would incur following its
implementation. These costs will include estimates for the following
elements: 1) Creating or modifying a security training program and
submitting it to TSA; 2) training (initial and recurrent) all security-
sensitive employees; 3) maintaining records of employee training; 4)
being available for inspections; 5) providing information on security
coordinators and alternates; and 6) reporting security concerns. TSA
will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to incur with the
implementation of this rule.
The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance
United States surface transportation security by reducing the
vulnerability of commercial OTRB operators to terrorist activity
through the training of security-sensitive employees. TSA uses a break-
even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of
the Security Training NPRM and the costs of implementing the
rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios extracted from the
TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine
the degree to which the Security Training NPRM must reduce the overall
risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the
NPRM to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses
scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence
estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a
method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in
earlier DHS rules.
After estimating the consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives
lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement and clean-up, and lost
revenue, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM
for OTRB operators to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of
attack.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Steve Sprague
Highway Passenger, Infrastructure and Licensing 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: 571 227-1468
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]
Traci Klemm
Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, E12-335N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-3596
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Related to 1652-AA57
RIN: 1652-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
85. 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.
[[Page 79566]]
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) proposed 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 proposed general requirements for security
programs to be adopted and implemented by repair stations certificated
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on November 18,
2009, requesting public comments to be submitted by January 19, 2010.
The comment period was extended to February 19, 2010, on request of the
stakeholders to allow the aviation industry and other interested
entities and individuals additional time to complete their comments.
Statement of Need:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing
regulations to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft
repair stations. The NPRM proposed to 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 provides 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; Dec. 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 1 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 sought 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 contingency plan. The total 10-
year undiscounted cost of the program is $344 million. The discounted
at 7 percent, 10-year cost of the program is $241 million. Security
coordinator costs of $132 million and training costs of $132 million
represent the largest portions of the program.
A major line of defense against an aviation-related terrorist act is
the prevention of explosives, weapons, and/or incendiary devices from
getting on board a plane. To date, efforts have been primarily related
to inspection of baggage, passengers, and cargo, and security measures
at airports that serve air carriers. With this rule, attention is given
to aircraft that are located at repair stations, and to aircraft parts
that are at repair stations, themselves to reduce the likelihood of an
attack against aviation and the country. Since repair station personnel
have direct access to all parts of an aircraft, the potential exists
for a terrorist to seek to commandeer or compromise an aircraft when
the aircraft is at one of these facilities. Moreover, as TSA tightens
security in other areas of aviation, repair stations increasingly may
become attractive targets for terrorist organizations attempting to
evade aviation security protections currently in place.
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
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 12/29/09 74 FR 68774
NPRM Extended Comment
Period End 02/19/10
Final Rule 05/00/11
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 79567]]
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
86. AIR CARGO SCREENING
Priority:
Other 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.
Other, Statutory, August 3, 2010, Screen 100 percent of cargo on
passenger aircraft.
Final, Statutory, November 3, 2010, 1 year after effective date of the
interim final rule.
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 NLT 18 months after the date of
enactment and 100 percent of such cargo NLT 3 years after the date of
enactment. The 9/11 Act also requires that TSA issue a final rule NLT 1
year after the effective date of the interim final rule (Nov. 2010).
Abstract:
On September 16, 2009, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that established the Certified Cargo
Screening Program (CCSP) that certifies shippers, manufacturers, and
other entities to screen air cargo intended for transport on a
passenger aircraft. This is 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, 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 its employees and authorized representatives that will be screening
cargo must successfully complete a security threat assessment. The CCSF
must also submit to an assessment of their security measures by TSA-
approved validators, 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.
TSA will issue a final rule responding to public comments from the IFR.
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, with the remaining 15 percent assumed to be shipped
via other modes. Under this alternative, the cost drivers 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 7 percent) over 10 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 FR are five-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
[[Page 79568]]
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 FR will allow market forces to identify the most efficient
venue for screening along the supply chain, as entities upstream from
the aircraft operator may apply to become CCSFs and screen cargo.
Fourth, the CCSP enables members to screen
valuable cargo earlier in the supply chain and avoid any potentially
invasive screening that may occur at the aircraft operator level.
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 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Agency Contact:
Victor Parker
Branch Chief, Air Cargo Policy & Plans
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3664
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
-----------
87. CONTINUED DETENTION OF ALIENS SUBJECT TO FINAL ORDERS OF REMOVAL
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1231; 8 USC 1253
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 241
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is proposing to amend the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulatory provisions for custody
determinations for aliens in immigration detention who are subject to
an administratively final order of removal. The proposed amendment
would add a paragraph to 8 CFR 241.4(g) providing that U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shall have a reasonable period of time to
effectuate an alien's removal where the alien is not in immigration
custody when the order of removal becomes administratively final. The
proposed rule would also clarify the removal period time frame afforded
to the agency following an alien's compliance with his or her
obligations regarding removal subsequent to a period of obstruction or
failure to cooperate. The rule proposes to make conforming changes to
241.13(b)(2). Lastly, the rule proposes to add a paragraph to 8 CFR
241.13(b)(3) to make clear that aliens certified by the Secretary under
section 236A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226a,
are not subject to the provisions of 8 CFR 241.13, in accordance with
the separate detention standard provided under the Act.
Statement of Need:
The companion final 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). This notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) will propose to 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.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This proposed rule will clarify the regulatory provisions concerning
the removal of aliens that are subject to an administratively final
order of removal. DHS does not anticipate there will be cost impacts to
the public as a result of the rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
[[Page 79569]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
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]
Related RIN: Related to 1653-AA13
RIN: 1653-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USICE
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
88. 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; . . .
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). Additionally, 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 propose to 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.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The changes are administrative and procedural in nature, and will not
result in cost impacts to the public. The benefits of making these
changes to the regulations will allow for expedited review of the post-
order custody review process.
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 03/00/11
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
89. 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
[[Page 79570]]
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 03/00/11
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
-----------
90. UPDATE OF FEMA'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 5121 to 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, 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-
[[Page 79571]]
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. 1725. Another alternative is to expand funding by expanding
force account labor cost eligibility to Category A Projects (debris
removal).
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 total economic impact of the proposed rule is estimated to
be approximately $50 million per year (in 2010 dollars). The primary
economic impact of the proposed rule is the additional transfer of
funding from FEMA through the Public Assistance program to grantees and
subgrantees that is effectuated by this rulemaking. The proposed rule
will also incur additional administrative costs to grantees and FEMA,
which is estimated to be approximately $230,000, and $20,000 per year,
respectively. 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.
Risks:
This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Tod Wells
Recovery Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 646-3936
Fax: 202 646-3363
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1660-AA51
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-S
[[Page 79572]]
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) 2011 highlights the most significant
regulatory 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 communities throughout America. Through its programs,
HUD works to strengthen the housing market and protect consumers; meet
the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a
platform for improving quality of life; and build inclusive and
sustainable communities free from discrimination.
The state of America's housing market plays a major role in shaping the
well-being of individuals and families, the stability of neighborhoods,
and the strength of America's economy. That is why the recent downturn
of the housing market--with high rates of foreclosure, increases in
vacant properties, and plummeting home values--has been so devastating
for families and communities alike. During this most recent downturn in
the housing market, millions of families have lost their homes, and at
least 3 million homeowners remain at risk of losing their homes. The
effect of the crisis on neighborhoods has been no less dramatic. The
high rate of foreclosures has undermined the stability of many
neighborhoods across America.
In 2009, HUD took a prominent role in the Administration's Federal
recovery strategy by helping American families keep their homes and
stabilizing neighborhoods hard hit by foreclosure. In the midst of a
credit crunch, HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) assisted
nearly 1.95 million households in fiscal year 2009. HUD led efforts in
foreclosure mitigation, homeownership counseling, and curbing mortgage
abuse and lending discrimination. Through funds awarded to HUD under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, HUD provided grant funds to
State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to stabilize
communities and neighborhoods negatively affected by foreclosure. HUD's
efforts to help homeowners struggling to keep their homes and
neighborhoods in distress did not abate in 2010. In 2010, HUD
introduced its FHA Short Refinance option, which enables lenders to
provide additional refinancing options to homeowners who owe more on
their mortgages than their homes are worth. Through additional funding
provided by Congress, HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization program
continues into 2010 to help neighborhoods that have suffered from
foreclosures.
Although homeownership historically has been the primary vehicle by
which American families have built wealth, the recent crisis has shown
that homeownership at any cost is fraught with peril. Americans need
sustainable homeownership in which the costs are appropriate for a
family's financial situation and the risks associated with
homeownership are understood and manageable. In this regard, 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. Additionally, increasing
affordable rental housing provides a means of addressing homelessness.
While HUD continues with programs to stem foreclosures and stabilize
neighborhoods, with signs suggesting that the Nation is on the road to
recovery, HUD is better able to direct efforts to implement the
Secretary's balanced comprehensive national housing policy. HUD's
regulatory plan for FY 2011 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: Providing Sustainable Homeownership Through Consumer
Education
Consumer protections help prevent borrowers from falling victim to
fraudulent loan products and aggressive marketing techniques. Such
products and techniques contributed to the current housing crisis. One
way to assist consumers from falling victims to fraudulent loan
products is to ensure that they fully understand the home purchase
process and the benefits but also the ongoing costs of homeownership.
Such consumer education over the years has been increasingly provided
by housing counselors, individuals trained and experienced in assisting
individuals with mortgage-related issues, personal finances, and how to
avoid default and foreclosure. Through HUD-funded and HUD-approved
housing counseling agencies, HUD helps ensure that prospective and
current homeowners have access to needed counseling services, as well
as for those who rent.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L.
111-203) signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010,
recognizes the importance that housing counseling plays in protecting
consumers from mortgage fraud and provides for the establishment of an
Office of Housing Counseling within HUD. The new office's
responsibilities include ensuring that homeownership counseling
addresses the entire process of homeownership, including the decision
to purchase a home, the selection and purchase of a home, issues
arising during or affecting the period of ownership of a home
(including refinancing, default and foreclosure, and other financial
decisions), and the sale or other disposition of a home. The new office
will also oversee that HUD-approved counseling agencies provide
counseling on the benefits and costs of renting. HUD's new Office of
Housing Counseling is charged with several other duties and
responsibilities, and HUD's FY 2011 regulatory plan includes the
rulemaking that will provide the regulatory foundation for the new
Office of Housing Counseling to carry out all of its important duties
and responsibilities.
Regulatory Action: Housing Counseling--New Program Requirements
HUD will issue a rule that reflects the authority of HUD's new Office
of Housing Counseling. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act provides that this office will establish, coordinate,
and administer all regulations, requirements, standards, and
performance measures under programs and laws administered by HUD that
relate to housing counseling, homeownership counseling (including
maintenance of homes), mortgage-related counseling (including home
equity conversion mortgages and credit protection options to avoid
foreclosure), and rental housing counseling, including the
requirements, standards, and performance measures relating to housing
counseling. The new law also directs HUD, through this office, to among
other things, establish standards for the eligibility of organizations
(including governmental
[[Page 79573]]
and nonprofit organizations) to receive HUD housing counseling grants;
establish standards for materials and forms to be used, as appropriate,
by organizations providing homeownership counseling services; provide
for the certification of various computer software programs for
consumers to use in evaluating different residential mortgage loan
proposals; and ensure that counselors receiving funding under HUD's
housing counseling grant program are properly certified, in accordance
with standards established by HUD.
Priority: Improving Energy Efficiency in Housing
Despite significant improvements in housing quality in recent decades,
much of the Nation's housing stock is not energy efficient. Increasing
the Nation's affordable housing stock must also include establishing or
improving energy efficiency in such housing. HUD initiated new energy
efficiency programs through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Recovery Act). These included: A $250 million Green Retrofit
Program for assisted multifamily buildings; $600 million for high
performing energy retrofit and green projects in public housing; and
additional formula and competitive programs that either contained
incentives for energy efficiency and green, or could be utilized for
that purpose. HUD estimates that up to 88,000 units may be retrofitted
through these programs, for an estimated energy savings of $21 million.
While HUD's programs and initiatives under the Recovery Act focused on
public and assisted multifamily housing, HUD's FY 2011 regulatory plan
focuses on establishing a regulatory foundation to improve energy
efficiency in FHA's title I Property Improvement Loan Insurance program
(Title I program). Through the Title I program, FHA makes it easier for
consumers to obtain affordable home improvement loans by insuring loans
made by private lenders to improve properties that meet certain
requirements. Title I program loans may be used to finance permanent
property improvements that protect or improve the basic livability or
utility of the property. HUD's FY 2011 rulemaking for the Title I
program will provide for qualified borrowers to obtain low cost loans
for specified energy improvements.
Regulatory Action: Title I Energy Retrofit Property Improvement Loans
HUD's rule amending the Title I program to provide for low cost loans
for energy improvements has its foundation in the Recovery through
Retrofit Report (Report), issued on October 19, 2009, by the Vice
President and the White House Middle Class Task Force. The Report
builds on the foundation laid out in the Recovery Act to expand green
job opportunities in the United States and boost energy savings for
middle class Americans by retrofitting homes for energy efficiency. The
Report recognizes that making American homes and buildings more energy
efficient presents an unprecedented opportunity for communities
throughout the country. Home retrofits can potentially help people earn
money, as home retrofit workers, while also helping them save money, by
lowering their utility bills. The regulatory amendments to be addressed
by this rulemaking will take into consideration the experience of HUD,
Title I lenders, and consumers participating in HUD's Title I program
Energy Retrofit Loan Demonstration to be launched late 2010. The
demonstration will allow HUD to assess the success of the proposed
modifications to its existing Title I program and address any
programmatic concerns before undertaking final codification of
regulatory amendments.
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 2011. HUD expects that the neither the total
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Housing (OH)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
91. TITLE I ENERGY RETROFIT PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT LOANS (FR-
5445)
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
12 USC 1703; 42 USC 3535(d)
CFR Citation:
24 CFR 201
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations for the title I
Property Improvement Loan Insurance program (Title I program) to better
assist qualified borrowers obtain low-cost loans for specified energy
improvements. Through the Title I program, FHA makes it easier for
consumers to obtain affordable home improvement loans by insuring loans
made by private lenders to improve properties that meet certain
requirements. Title I program loans may be used to finance permanent
property improvements that protect or improve the basic livability or
utility of the property. The proposed rule is being issued in response
to the Recovery through Retrofit Report (Report), issued on October 19,
2009, by the Vice President and the White House Middle Class Task
Force. The Report builds on the foundation laid out in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5; approved February 17,
2009) to expand green job opportunities in the United States and boost
energy savings for middle class Americans by retrofitting homes for
energy efficiency. The Report recognizes that making American homes and
buildings more energy efficient presents an unprecedented opportunity
for communities throughout the country. Home retrofits can potentially
help people earn money, as home retrofit workers, while also helping
them save money, by lowering their utility bills. By encouraging
nationwide weatherization of homes, workers of all skill levels will be
trained, engaged, and will participate in ramping up a national home
retrofit market.
The proposed regulatory amendments build upon the experience of HUD,
title I lenders and consumers participating in the Department's Title I
program Energy Retrofit Loan Demonstration. Before undertaking
rulemaking to codify the regulatory amendments on a permanent,
nationwide basis, HUD decided to conduct a demonstration involving a
limited number of lenders and areas of the country. The demonstration
will allow HUD to assess the success of the proposed modifications to
the existing program and to address any programmatic concerns before
authorizing its use throughout the country.
[[Page 79574]]
Statement of Need:
The Report identified several barriers that have prevented a self-
sustaining retrofit market from forming. Among other barriers, the
Report found that homeowners face high upfront costs and many are
concerned that they will be prevented from recouping the value of their
investment if they choose to sell their home. The upfront costs of home
retrofit projects are often beyond the average homeowner's budget. The
report found that the solution to the lack of home energy retrofit
financing is to make such financing more accessible and more consumer
friendly. The proposed regulatory amendments will help to address these
needs by enabling qualified borrowers obtain title I low cost loans for
energy-related home improvements.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Title I program is authorized under title I, section 2, of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1703). Specifically, under section 2(a)
of the National Housing Act, the Secretary of HUD is authorized to help
homeowners finance alterations, repairs, and improvements in connection
with existing structures or manufactured homes. HUD's implementing
regulations are codified at 24 CFR part 201.
Alternatives:
The primary alternative HUD considered to amending the Title I
regulations was use of the existing FHA Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM)
program. The FHA EEM program allows a borrower to finance and
incremental amount on their first mortgage to invest in energy
efficiency, with an additional appraisal or further credit
qualification, provided that the benefit of projected energy savings
exceed the cost of the improvements, as estimated by an energy audit,
HUD ultimately determined that the EEM was not an optimal vehicle for
achieving the energy innovation goals of this rule. First the FHA EEM
is, by definition, a negative equity instrument, and negative equity is
extremely problematic in the current housing market. Another
problematic feature of the EEM program is that the financing may exceed
the benefit from and useful life of the measures, and result in a total
net cost to the consumer that does not represent the optimal use of
funds.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The aggregate net benefits are obtained by multiplying the individual
net benefits by the expected number of loans and adding the expected
social benefits of reduced energy consumption. As a base case, HUD
assumes a consumer household with annual savings of $1000, a zero
percent price growth and a 7 percent discount rate. The present value
of a technical retrofit for this base case scenario is $11,400.
Assuming a rebound effect of 30 percent yields a comfort benefit of
$3,400 and energy savings of $8,000 per participant (the ``rebound
effect'' refers to the fact that the reaction of the consumer to the
energy-saving technology will not necessarily reduce energy consumption
by what is technically possible). Approximately 24,000 loans are
expected over two years. For the base case scenario, this would equal
$41 million comfort benefits and $96 million in energy saving for each
year of the program. The benefits of the FHA program may not equal the
sum of the benefits of all retrofits financed through the program, but
only reflect the benefits of the retrofits that would not have occurred
without the program; however, the existence of significant market
imperfections and the lack of affordable financing makes it reasonable
to assume that a large proportion, if not all of the loans, will
generate benefits. The cost of receiving the energy-savings is the
upfront investment plus the costs of financing the investment. the cost
per investment is thus equal to the size of the loan.
Risks:
This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Karin Hill
Director, Office of Single Family Program Development
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
451 7th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202 708-4308
RIN: 2502-AI93
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--OH
92. HOUSING COUNSELING: NEW PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (FR-5446)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
12 USC 1701x; 42 USC 3535(d)
CFR Citation:
24 CFR 214
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations for the Housing
Counseling program to address the new program requirements and
certification requirements for HUD approved housing counselors as
provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010). The proposed rule would
also reflect the authority and responsibility of HUD's new Office of
Housing Counseling to coordinate and administer HUD's Housing
Counseling program.
HUD's Housing Counseling program is authorized by section 106 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x). Section
106 authorizes HUD to provide, make grants to, or contract with public
or private organizations to provide a broad range of housing counseling
services to homeowners and tenants to assist them in improving their
housing conditions and in meeting the responsibilities of tenancy or
homeownership. The regulations contained in this part prescribe the
procedures and requirements by which the Housing Counseling program
will be administered. These regulations apply to all agencies
participating in HUD's Housing Counseling program.
The proposed regulatory amendments will implement the changes made to
[[Page 79575]]
section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 by the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which
include directing that HUD-approved housing counseling agencies provide
counseling that addresses the entire process of homeownership and that
HUD establish materials and forms to be used by HUD-approved housing
counselors.
Statement of Need:
The rulemaking is needed because HUD's current regulations for the
Housing Counseling program do not reflect the changes made to section
106 of section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 by
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform. The changes enhance the choices and
protections afforded borrowers participating in HUD's single family
mortgage insurance programs.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Housing Counseling program is authorized by section 106 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x), as
recently amended by subtitle D of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Alternatives:
As noted, the purpose of this rule is to update HUD's regulations that
do not reflect current statutory requirements. While certain statutory
changes may be implemented through HUD's annual competitive allocation
of fund for the Housing Counseling program provided by appropriations
acts, the regulation nevertheless needs to be amended to reflect the
program changed made by changes to the underlying statutory authority.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The benefit of the proposed regulatory amendments will be to strengthen
the protection of consumers, primarily those who are prospective
homeowners but also current homeowners through the enhanced counseling
requirements provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act. The more comprehensive counseling services directed to
be provided and the review of materials and forms by HUD designed to
better educate consumers about homeownership are expected to produce
homebuyers better educated about the homeownership process and less
vulnerable to fraudulent mortgage practices. Costs are expected to
minimal. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
authorizes funding to help establish HUD's new Office of Housing
Counseling and the additional functions to be carried out by this
office. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
also authorizes additional funding for the expansion of services to be
carried out by HUD-approved counseling agencies.
Risks:
This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Ruth Roman
Director, Office of Housing Counseling
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
451 7th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20410-0001
Phone: 202 402-2112
RIN: 2502-AI94
BILLING CODE 4210-67-S
[[Page 79576]]
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 392 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.
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, safe, 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,
minerals, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
Managing migratory birds and preserving marine mammals and
endangered species;
Managing dedicated lands, such as national parks, wildlife
refuges, National Landscape Conservation System 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.
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 maintaining and managing wildlife habitat to 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 to finalize a rule implementing 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 location fee rates and collection for all DOI agencies.
The Park Service is developing a new winter use regulation for
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller,
Jr., Memorial Parkway. This regulation will replace an interim rule
expiring at the end of the 2010 to 2011 winter season. It will
establish an average daily entrance limit on the number of snowmobiles
and snow coaches that may enter the park, and will continue the limit
of 10 snowmobiles for groups and guided tours. As the first steps
toward developing this new rule, NPS will publish a proposed rule in
the spring of 2011.
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 archaeological collections. At present,
[[Page 79577]]
there is no legal procedure to deaccession items in Federal collections
that are of ``insufficient archaeological 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 while ensuring proper disposition of
those archaeological items.
The rule also requires assigning a specific individual to be
accountable for proper disposition. This complicated rule is now
undergoing final review and should be ready for publication in early
2011.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources.
The Bureau of Land Management 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. Because public
lands are extensive and widely distributed, the Department has an
important role, in consultation with 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 and solar, wind, and geothermal energy facilities 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. The Department will continue its
intra- and inter-departmental efforts to move forward with the
environmentally responsible review and permitting of renewable energy
projects on public lands.
On March 11, 2009, the Secretary issued his first Secretarial Order
that made facilitating production, development, and delivery of
renewable energy on public lands and the OCS top priorities at the
Department. In accomplishing these goals, the Department will protect
our signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural
resources and will collaborate with relevant Federal, State, tribal,
and other agencies. The Secretarial Order also established an energy
and climate change task force that draws from the leadership of each of
the bureaus and is responsible for:
Quantifying potential contributions of renewable energy
resources on our public lands and the OCS; and
Identifying and prioritizing specific areas on public lands
where the Department can facilitate a rapid and responsible
increase in production of renewable energy.
On April 29, 2009, the former 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 the Fish and Wildlife Service (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, the Bureau of Land Management uses Resource Advisory
Councils made up of affected parties to help prepare land management
plans and regulations that it issues.
The National Park Service (NPS) 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. NPS is
revising the regulations to improve protection of NPS resources and
bring those 385 wells under the regulatory umbrella. NPS actively
sought public input into designing the rule and published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a comment period from November 15,
2009, through January 25, 2010. Interested members of the public were
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. NPS expects to publish a
proposed rule in mid 2011.
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 is
making listing decisions for 48 species on the island of Kauai 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
ecological community 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
[[Page 79578]]
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 dollars 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
The following brief descriptions summarize the regulatory functions of
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 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 565 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 the coming year, 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 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.
BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
Develop regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals for
land consolidation and land use management.
BIA is developing amendments to regulations in the areas of land title
and records, conveyances of trust or restricted land,
leasing, grazing, trespass, rights-of-way, and energy and
minerals. Together, these regulatory changes will provide
the Department with the tools it needs to better serve
beneficiaries and will standardize procedures for
consistent execution of fiduciary responsibilities across
the BIA.
Revise loan guaranty regulations to promote private investment
in Indian Country.
BIA plans to propose a rule that would address the chronic lack of
business lending faced by Indian communities. While BIA
currently operates a successful loan guaranty, insurance,
and interest subsidy program, the program's current
regulations are best suited to assisting for-profit
businesses to secure loans in the $250,000 to $10 million
range. Revisions to the rule would:
- Promote financing for smaller loans (under $250,000), which are important
for sparking economic development, by allowing community development
financial institutions to obtain program guarantees and insurance and by
using fiscal transfer agents to encourage financing for small loans.
- Obtain funding for higher cost projects (above $10 million)-including
infrastructure projects, energy projects, and other large projects
requiring a longer repayment horizon-by offering a Federal Government
guarantee for taxable tribal bonds. The guarantee would help ensure bond
placement, decrease market rates charged for bonds, and help tribes become
established in the bond market.
- Extend eligibility for the program to non-profit borrowers who make a
significant economic contribution to the Indian reservation or tribal
service area.
These changes are authorized by the Indian Financing Act, as amended by
the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2006.
Identify and develop regulatory changes necessary for improved
Indian education.
BIA is currently reviewing regulations addressing grants to tribally
controlled community colleges and other Indian education
regulations. The review will identify provisions that need
to be updated to comply with applicable statutes and ensure
that the proper regulatory framework is in place to support
students of Bureau-funded schools.
Develop regulatory changes to reform the process for Federal
acknowledgment of Indian tribes.
Over the years, BIA has received significant comments from American
Indian groups and members of Congress on the Federal
acknowledgment process established by 25 CFR part 83. Most
of these comments claim that the current process is
cumbersome and overly restrictive. BIA is reviewing the
current Federal acknowledgment regulation and will develop
any necessary regulatory changes.
Revise regulations governing administrative appeals and other
processes to increase transparency.
BIA is making a concentrated effort to improve the readability and
precision of its regulations. Because trust beneficiaries
often turn to the regulations for guidance on how a given
BIA process works, BIA is
[[Page 79579]]
ensuring that each revised regulation is written as clearly
as possible and accurately reflects the current
organization of the Bureau. A few of the regulations BIA
will be focusing this effort on include the regulation
governing administrative appeals (25 CFR part 2), the land
use management regulations mentioned above, and regulations
addressing various Indian services.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the 245-million-acre
National System of Public Lands, located primarily in the western
States, including Alaska, and the 700-million-acre subsurface mineral
estate located throughout the Nation. BLM's complex multiple-use
mission affects the lives of a great number of Americans, including
those who live near and visit the public lands, as well as millions of
Americans who benefit from commodities, such as minerals, energy, or
timber, produced from the lands' rich resources.
BLM's multiple-use mission conserves the lands' natural and cultural
resources and sustains the health and productivity of the public lands
for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM
manages such varied uses as energy and mineral development, outdoor
recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and woodlands products.
This year, BLM has celebrated the 10th anniversary of the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), created in 2000 to highlight the
conservation side of the Agency's multiple-use mandate. Last year,
Congress, through the passage of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
(Pub. L. 111-11), affirmed its support of BLM-managed 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. More than
880 NLCS treasured landscapes now span the Nation from Florida to
Alaska.
BLM is analyzing proposals for increasing renewable energy development
on public lands. The quality of life that Americans enjoy today depends
largely upon a stable and abundant supply of affordable energy. Because
BLM manages more Federal land than any other agency--more than 245
million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres of mineral
estate--it plays a key role in ensuring that the Nation's energy needs
are met by managing both Federal renewable and non-renewable sources of
energy. This is accomplished in an environmentally and fiscally sound
way that protects our natural resources and critical wildlife habitat
for such species as the sage-grouse and lynx. Although renewable energy
can help reduce greenhouse gases, its development is not without
environmental impacts. Large, commercial-scale solar energy plants, for
example, can have long-term environmental impacts and may override
other uses of the land.
Another BLM priority is siting and authorizing transmission corridors
to assist the national effort to move renewable energy from production
sites to market. BLM has already accomplished a significant step in
this direction by designating more than 5,000 miles of energy transport
corridors for the West-wide Energy Corridors. Development of actual
transmission lines is done by authorizing rights-of-way across public
lands.
In an effort to prioritize its complex, multiple-use responsibilities,
BLM has identified several emphasis areas to help explain its
regulatory priorities. The following describes these programs and
initiatives and reflects their interrelationship with the following
priorities of the Secretary of the Interior:
Energy independence
Treasured landscapes
Native American Nations
Treasured landscapes
Protecting the landscapes of the National System of Public Lands
involves numerous BLM programs as the Agency moves toward a holistic,
landscape-level approach to managing multiple public land uses. BLM
also engages partners interested in working on a broader scale across
jurisdictional lines to achieve a common landscape vision. For the past
several years, BLM, which manages the largest amount and the greatest
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat of any Federal agency, has
focused on restoring healthy landscapes in a number of ways, including:
Reducing the number of wild horses and burros on public lands,
particularly in areas most affected by drought and
wildfire. Maintaining the wild horse and burro population
at appropriate management levels is critical in the effort
to conserve forage resources that also sustain native
wildlife and livestock.
Restoring habitat for sensitive, rare, threatened, and
endangered species, such as sage-grouse, desert tortoise,
and salmon.
Supporting greater biodiversity through noxious weed and
invasive species treatments to bring back native plants.
Improving water quality by restoring riparian areas and
protecting watersheds. Enhanced water quality aids in the
restoration of habitat for fish and other aquatic and
riparian species.
Conducting post-fire recovery efforts to promote healthy
landscapes and discourage the spread of invasive species.
Native American Nations
BLM consults with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis
under multiple authorities and is continually working to assess and
improve its tribal consultation practices. BLM held listening sessions
throughout the West on this important issue in 2009 and 2010 and
received many valuable comments. BLM has continued its efforts to
improve its tribal consultation practices by participating with the
Department in multiple listening sessions with tribes throughout the
country.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),
enacted in 1990, addresses the rights of lineal descendants, Indian
tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain Native American
human remains, funerary objects, associated funerary objects, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony with which they are
affiliated. The statute and implementing regulations represent a
careful balance between the legitimate interests of lineal descendants,
Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to control the remains
of their ancestors and cultural property and the legitimate public
interests in scientific and educational information associated with the
human remains and cultural items.
BLM is complying with the new NAGPRA regulations, including
inventorying and repatriating human remains and other cultural items
that are in BLM museum collections. BLM also consults with Indian
tribes on implementing appropriate actions when human remains and other
cultural items subject to NAGPRA are inadvertently discovered or
intentionally excavated on the public lands.
Additionally, BLM, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
helps tribes and individual Indian allottees
[[Page 79580]]
develop their solid and fluid mineral resources. BLM is responsible for
development, product measurement, and inspection and enforcement of
extracting operations of the mineral estate on trust properties.
BLM's regulatory priorities
BLM's regulatory focus is directed primarily by the priorities of the
President and Congress, which include:
Facilitating domestic production of various sources of energy,
including biomass, wind, solar, and other alternative
sources.
Providing for a wide variety of public uses while maintaining
the long-term health and diversity of the land.
Preserving significant natural, cultural, and historic
resource values.
Understanding the arid, semi-arid, arctic, and other
ecosystems that BLM manages.
Using the best scientific and technical information to make
resource management decisions.
Understanding the needs of the people who use and enjoy BLM-
managed public lands and providing them with quality
service.
Securing the recovery of a fair return for using publicly
owned resources and avoiding the creation of long-term
liabilities for American taxpayers.
Resolving problems and implementing decisions in cooperation
with other agencies, States, tribal governments, and the
public.
In developing regulations, BLM recognizes the need to ensure
communication, coordination, and consultation with the public,
including affected interests, tribes, and other stakeholders. BLM also
works to draft regulations that are easy for the public to understand
and that provide clarity to those most affected by them.
BLM's specific regulatory priorities include:
Revising onshore oil and gas operating standards
BLM expects to publish rules to revise several existing onshore oil and
gas operating orders and propose one new onshore order. Onshore orders
establish requirements and minimum standards and provide standard
operating procedures. The orders are binding on operating rights owners
and operators of Federal and Indian (except the Osage Nation) oil and
gas leases and on all wells and facilities on State or private lands
committed to Federal agreements. BLM is responsible for ensuring that
oil or gas produced and sold from Federal or Indian leases is
accurately measured for quantity and quality. The volume and quality of
oil or gas sold from leases is key to determining the proper royalty to
be paid by the lessee to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
Existing Onshore Orders Number 3, 4, and 5 would be revised to use new
industry standards so that they reflect current operating procedures
and to require that proper verification and accounting practices are
used consistently. New Onshore Order Number 9 would cover waste
prevention and beneficial use. The revisions would ensure that proper
royalties are paid on oil and gas removed from Federal and Trust lands.
Revising coal-management regulations
BLM plans to publish a proposed rule to amend the coal-management
regulations that pertain to the administration of Federal coal leases
and logical mining units. The rule would primarily implement provisions
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that pertain to administering coal
leases. The rule also would clarify the royalty rate applicable to
continuous highwall mining, a new coal-mining method in use on some
Federal coal leases.
Publishing rules on paleontological resources preservation
The 2009 omnibus public lands law included provisions on permitting for
the collection of paleontological resources. BLM and the National Park
Service are co-leads of a team with the U. S. Forest Service that will
be drafting a paleontological resources rule. The rule would address
the protection of paleontological resources and how BLM would permit
the collection of these resources. The rule would also address other
issues such as administering permits, casual collection of rocks and
minerals, hobby collection of common invertebrate plants and fossils,
and civil and criminal penalties for violation of these rules.
Revising the timber sale contract extension regulations
BLM regulations currently allow timber sale contract extensions under
very limited circumstances and specifically do not allow extensions for
``market fluctuations.'' Nor do the regulations allow any reduction of
contract value due to declines in the lumber market. BLM plans to
publish a rule that would amend the forest product disposal regulations
that pertain to the administration of forest product contracts. The
recent decline in the housing industry has resulted in a more severe
decline in the timber market than historically experienced, leaving
many purchasers of BLM timber sale contracts without a reasonable
market in which to sell harvested timber. The revised rule would allow
BLM to extend contracts under specified circumstances. Regulatory
changes would provide BLM more options to help maintain the logging and
sawmilling infrastructure needed to manage the 66 million acres of
timber and woodland resources on the public lands.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire erupted on an offshore
drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico called the Deepwater Horizon. As a
result, the Secretary recommended a series of steps to immediately
improve the safety of offshore oil and gas drilling operations in
Federal waters and a suspension of certain permitting and drilling
activities until the safety measures can be implemented and further
analysis completed. Recommended actions include prescriptive near-term
requirements, longer-term performance-based safety measures, and one or
more Department-led working groups to evaluate longer-term safety
issues.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEM) replaced the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) and will
strengthen oversight and policing of offshore oil and gas development.
The program is national in scope and has two major program offices:
1) The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will function as the resource
manager for the conventional and renewable energy and
mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS). It
will foster environmentally responsible and appropriate
development of the OCS for both conventional and renewable
energy and mineral resources in an efficient and effective
manner that ensures fair market value for the rights
conveyed.
2) The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement will apply
independent regulation, oversight, and enforcement powers
to promote and enforce safety in offshore energy
exploration and production operations and ensure that
potentially negative environmental impacts on marine
ecosystems and coastal
[[Page 79581]]
communities are appropriately considered and mitigated.
In 2009, MMS completed a major milestone by developing and codifying
the regulatory framework for renewable energy projects on the OCS. We
are continuing to implement the regulatory provisions for developing
the Nation's offshore wind, wave, and ocean current resources in a safe
and environmentally sound manner.
Our regulatory focus for fiscal year 2011 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:
Establish New Requirements for Safety Measures for Oil and Gas
Operations.
This interim final rule published on October 15, 2010 (74 FR 63610).
It implements certain safety measures outlined in a Safety
Measures Report to the President dated May 27, 2010, which
was prepared in response to the Deepwater Horizon event.
The recommendations implemented in this interim rule revise
regulations related to subsea and surface blowout
preventers, well casing and cementing, secondary
intervention, unplanned disconnects, recordkeeping, well
completion, and well plugging.
Develop a Comprehensive Safety and Environmental Management
Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities.
Promulgate a final rule for all OCS oil and gas operations and
facilities under BOEM's jurisdiction including, but not
limited to, drilling, production, construction, well
workover, well completion, pipelines, fixed and floating
facilities, mobile offshore drilling units, and lifting
activities. This rule adds requirements for recordkeeping
and documentation, hazards analysis, and job safety
analysis for activities identified or discussed in the
Safety and Environmental Management System program. It
published on October 14, 2010 (74 FR 63346).
Develop additional rules and regulations as a result of
ongoing reviews of BOEMRE's offshore regulatory regime.
Several investigations and reviews of BOEMRE are being conducted by
various agencies and entities--including the Safety
Oversight Board, the Office of Inspector General, the
President's Deepwater Horizon Commission, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the joint BOEMRE/USCG
investigation of Deepwater Horizon. Some of these
investigations and reviews focus narrowly on the Deepwater
Horizon explosion; others are broader in focus and include
many aspects of BOEMRE's current regulatory system. We
expect that recommendations for regulatory changes--both
substantive and procedural--will be generated by these
investigations and reviews, and will need to be reviewed,
analyzed, and potentially incorporated in new or modified
regulations.
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 re-designating
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.
Office of Natural Resource Revenue
The revenue responsibilities of the former MMS will now be located in
the Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR), which will continue to
collect, account for, and disburse 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 will
operate Nationwide and will be primarily responsible for timely and
accurate collection, distribution, and accounting for revenues
associated with mineral and energy production. The regulatory program
of ONRR will seek to:
Simplify valuation regulations.
ONRR plans to simplify the regulations at 30 CFR part 206 for
establishing the value for royalty purposes of oil, natural gas, coal,
and geothermal produced from Federal and Indian leases. Additionally,
the proposed rule would consolidate sections of the regulations common
to all minerals such as definitions and instructions regarding how a
payor should request a valuation determination.
Finalize debt collection regulations.
ONRR is preparing regulations governing collection of delinquent
royalties, rentals, bonuses, and other amounts due under
Federal and Indian oil, gas, and other mineral leases. The
regulations would include provisions for administrative
offset and would clarify and codify the provisions of the
Debt Collection Act of 1982 and the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996.
Continue to meet Indian trust responsibilities.
ONRR has a trust responsibility to accurately collect and disburse oil
and gas royalties on Indian lands. ONRR will increase
royalty certainty by addressing oil valuation for Indian
lands through a rulemaking process involving key
stakeholders.
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:
The National Wildlife Refuge System--conserving our lands and
resources;
Landscape conservation--working with others;
[[Page 79582]]
Migratory birds--conservation and management;
Threatened and endangered species--achieving recovery and
preventing extinction;
Connecting people with 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).
To carry out these priorities, FWS has a large regulatory agenda that
will, among other things:
List, delist, and reclassify species on the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 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 harvest of fish and
wildlife in Alaska;
Update our regulations governing the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program; and
Set forth hunting and sport fishing regulations for the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
National Park Service
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 July13, 2009, and the public
comment period ended on September 11, 2009. The Service hopes to
complete and publish a final rule by the end of 2010.
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 employ management, engineering, and science to achieve
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 continued to
focus on increased security at our facilities.
Our regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2011 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 2011.
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 2011.
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-S
[[Page 79583]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Justice's highest priority is to protect America
against acts of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, within the letter
and spirit of the Constitution. While vigorously pursuing 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 achieve the
fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, to
assist its State and local partners, and to defend the Nation's
interests 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 key regulatory priorities include
regulatory initiatives in the area of civil rights, criminal justice,
and immigration. These are summarized below. However, in addition to
these initiatives, several other components of the Department carry out
important responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although
their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview
of the regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in
implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement
priorities.
Civil Rights
In September 2010, the Department published its final rules amending
its regulations implementing title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination by public
entities, and title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination by
public accommodations and certain testing entities and requires
commercial facilities to be constructed or altered in compliance with
the ADA accessibility standards. These key regulations adopt revised
ADA Standards for Accessible Design and address certain key policy
issues. During the course of this rulemaking project, the Department
became aware of the need to provide guidance on four additional subject
matter areas--use of accessible web sites, movie captions and video
descriptions, the accessibility of emergency call centers (Next
Generation 9-1-1), and accessible equipment and furniture. On July 26,
2010, the Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) for each of these subject areas. These rules will be the focus
of the Civil Rights Division's regulatory activities for FY 2011. The
Department also plans to propose amendments to its ADA regulations to
implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which took effect on January
1, 2009.
The four ANPRMs published on July 26, 2010, include:
NG 9-1-1. This ANPRM seeks information on possible revisions to the
Department's regulation to ensure direct access to NG 9-1-1 services
for individuals with disabilities. In 1991, the Department of Justice
published a regulation to implement title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). That regulation requires public safety
answering points (PSAPs) to provide direct access to persons with
disabilities who use analog telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TTYs) 28 CFR 35.162. Since that rule was published, there have been
major changes in the types of communications technology used by the
general public and by people who have disabilities that affect their
hearing or speech. Many individuals with disabilities now use the
Internet and wireless text devices as their primary modes of
telecommunications. At the same time, PSAPs are planning to shift from
analog telecommunications technology to new Internet-Protocol (IP)-
enabled Next Generation 9-1-1 services (NG 9-1-1) that will provide
voice and data (such as text, pictures, and video) capabilities. As
PSAPs transition from the analog systems to the new technologies, it is
essential that their plans ensure that people with communication
disabilities will be able to use the new systems. Therefore, the
Department published this ANPRM to begin to develop appropriate
guidance for PSAPs that are making this transition.
Movie captioning and video description. Title III of the ADA requires
public accommodations to take ``such steps as may be necessary to
ensure that no individual with a disability is treated differently
because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the
covered entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would cause a
fundamental alteration or would result in an undue burden.'' 42 U.S.C.
section 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open and closed captioning and audio
recordings are examples of auxiliary aids and services that should be
provided by places of public accommodations, 28 CFR section
36.303(b)(1)-(2). The Department stated in the preamble to its 1991
rule that ``[m]ovie theaters are not required * * * to present open-
captioned films,'' 28 CFR part 36, app. B, but it was silent regarding
closed captioning and video description in movie theaters.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area of
closed captioning and video description for first-run movies. In June
2008, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
revise the ADA title III regulation, 73 FR 34466, in which the
Department stated that it was considering options for requiring that
movie theater owners or operators exhibit movies that are captioned or
that provide video (narrative) description. The Department received
numerous comments urging the Department to issue captioning and video
description regulations. The Department is persuaded that such
regulations are appropriate. However, the Department decided to issue
an ANPRM to obtain more information regarding issues raised by
commenters; to seek comment on technical questions that arose from the
Department's research; and to learn more about the status of digital
conversion. In addition, the Department sought information regarding
whether other technologies or areas of interest (e.g., 3D) have
developed or are in the process of development that either would
replace or augment digital cinema or make any regulatory requirements
for captioning and video description more difficult or expensive to
implement. Responses to these questions will inform the Department's
decisions about the scope of a proposed rule.
Web Site Accessibility. The Internet as it is known today did not exist
when Congress enacted the ADA, yet today the World Wide Web plays a
critical role in the daily personal, professional, civic, and business
life of Americans. The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination mandate
reaches goods and services provided by public accommodations and public
entities using Internet websites. Being unable to access websites puts
individuals at a great disadvantage in today's society, which is driven
by a dynamic electronic marketplace and unprecedented access to
information. On the economic front, electronic commerce, or ``e-
commerce,'' often offers consumers a wider selection and lower prices
than traditional, ``brick-and-mortar'' storefronts, with the added
convenience of not having to leave one's home to obtain goods and
services. For individuals with
[[Page 79584]]
disabilities who experience barriers to their ability to travel or to
leave their homes, the Internet may be their only way to access certain
goods and services. Beyond goods and services, information available on
the Internet has become a gateway to education, socializing, and
entertainment.
The Internet is also dramatically changing the way that governmental
entities serve the public. Public entities are increasingly providing
their constituents access to government services and programs through
their websites. Through government websites, the public can obtain
information or correspond with local officials without having to wait
in line or be placed on hold. They can also pay fines, apply for
benefits, renew State-issued identification, register to vote, file
taxes, request copies of vital records, and complete numerous other
everyday tasks. The availability of these services and information
online not only makes life easier for the public, but also enables
governmental entities to operate more efficiently and at a lower cost.
The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of American
civic and economic life will be achieved in today's technologically
advanced society only if it is clear to State and local governments,
businesses, educators, and other public accommodations that their
websites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department is
considering amending its regulations implementing title II and title
III of the ADA to require public entities and public accommodations
that provide products or services to the public through Internet
websites make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
Equipment and Furniture. Both title II and title III of the ADA require
covered entities to make reasonable modifications in their programs or
services to facilitate participation by persons with disabilities. In
addition, covered entities are required to ensure that people are not
excluded from participation because facilities are inaccessible or
because the entity has failed to provide auxiliary aids. The use of
accessible equipment and furniture is often critical to an entity's
ability to provide a person with a disability equal access to its
services. Changes in technology have resulted in the development and
improved availability of accessible equipment and furniture that
benefit individuals with disabilities. Consequently, it is easier now
to specify appropriate accessibility standards for such equipment and
furniture, as the 2010 ADA Standards will do for several types of fixed
equipment and furniture, including ATMs, washing machines, dryers,
tables, benches, and vending machines. To the extent that ADA standards
apply requirements for fixed equipment and furniture, the Department
will look to those standards for guidance on accessibility standards
for equipment and furniture that are not fixed. The ANPRM seeks
information about other categories of equipment--particularly medical
equipment and exercise equipment. The public is invited to suggest
other types of equipment that should be addressed.
Prison Rape Elimination
Pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA or the
``Act''), the Department is drafting regulations to adopt national
standards for the detection, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.
PREA established the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission for
the purpose of studying prison rape. The Commission issued a report
that provided recommended national standards for reducing prison rape,
which in turn, are to be reviewed by the Justice Department.
Specifically, PREA mandates that national standards issued pursuant to
PREA ``shall be based upon the independent judgment of the Attorney
General, after giving due consideration to the recommended national
standards provided by the Commission... and being informed by such
data, opinions, and proposals that the Attorney General determines to
be appropriate to consider.'' The Act further provides that the
Department ``shall not establish a national standard... that would
impose substantial additional costs compared to the costs presently
expended by Federal, State, and local prison authorities.''
The Department is reviewing the Commission's recommendations and is
drafting proposed regulations. In addition, the Department is reviewing
a study by an independent contractor commissioned by the Department's
Office of Justice Programs to analyze the costs of the Commission's
proposed recommendations. The Department is also reviewing extensive
public comments on the Commission's proposed recommendations pursuant
to an ANPRM that the Department issued while awaiting the completion of
the cost analysis.
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. As the Department reviewed the comments submitted in
response to the February 2009 notice, it considered further the
statutory requirements governing the regulatory implementation of the
chapter 154 certification procedures. The Attorney General has
determined that chapter 154 reasonably could be construed to allow the
Attorney General greater discretion in making certification
determinations than the December 2008 regulations allowed. Accordingly,
a new rulemaking, and the removal of the entire December 2008 final
rule, is warranted in order to articulate the standards the Attorney
General will apply in making chapter 154 certification decisions and to
obtain public input concerning the formulation of such standards. As
the first step of this process, the Department published a notice in
the Federal Register on May 25, 2010, proposing to remove the December
2008 regulations pending the completion of a new rulemaking process.
The May 2010 rule will be finalized by a final rule to be published in
the fall of 2010. The next step in the process will be the publication
of a new proposed rule proposing new chapter 154 certification
standards and seeking public input concerning the formulation of such
standards.
Criminal Law Enforcement
For the most part, the Department's criminal law enforcement components
do not rely on the rulemaking process to carry out their assigned
missions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, is
responsible for protecting and defending the United States against
terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the
criminal laws of the United States, and providing leadership and
criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and
international agencies and partners. Only in very limited contexts does
the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, the FBI is currently updating
its National Instant
[[Page 79585]]
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 2011, 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 Nov. 25, 2002).
Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances. 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 Interim Final Rule with
Request for Comment ``Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled
Substances'' [RIN 1117-AA61]. This regulation provides practitioners
with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances
electronically and permits pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive
electronic prescriptions for controlled substances. This regulation
provides 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.
Bureau of Prisons Initiatives. 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; 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.
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 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--Legal Activities (LA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
93. NATIONAL STANDARDS TO PREVENT, DETECT, AND RESPOND TO PRISON RAPE
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301; 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; 42 USC 15601
CFR Citation:
28 CFR 115
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, June 23, 2010.
[[Page 79586]]
Abstract:
The Department of Justice has under review national standards for
enhancing the prevention, detection, and response to sexual abuse in
confinement settings that were prepared by the National Commission on
Prison Rape Elimination pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (PREA) and recommended by the Commission to the Attorney General.
Through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), the
Department received public input on the Commission's proposed national
standards and information useful to the Department in publishing a
final rule adopting national standards for the detection, prevention,
reduction and punishment of prison rape, as mandated by PREA.
Statement of Need:
Rape is violent, destructive, and a crime--no less so when the victim
is incarcerated. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the
government's custody is incompatible with American values. Congress
affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from sexual abuse
by enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C.
section 15601 et seq.
Summary of Legal Basis:
PREA requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations that adopt
national standards for the detection, prevention, and punishment of
prison rape. PREA established the Commission to carry out a
comprehensive legal and factual study of a penological, physical,
mental, medical, social, and economic impacts of prison rape in the
United States, and to recommend to the Attorney General national
standard for the detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of
prison rape. The Commission released its recommended national standards
in a report dated June 23, 2009. Pursuant to PREA the final rule
adopting national standards ``shall be based upon the independent
judgment of the Attorney General, after giving due consideration to the
recommended national standards provided by the Commission. . .and being
informed by such data, opinions, and proposals that the Attorney
General determines to be appropriate to consider.'' 42 U.S.C. section
24607(a)(2). PREA expressly mandates that the Department shall not
establish a national standard ``that would impose substantial
additional costs compared to the costs presently expended by the
Federal, State, and local prison authorities.'' 42 U.S.C. section
24607(a)(3).
Alternatives:
Given the specific direction of Congress, the Department is obligated
to issue a rule that promulgates regulations establishing national
standards to combat prison rape. As discussed in the rule and in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) the Department has received input from
numerous stakeholders concerning the development of these regulations
and, as part of the development process, considered a wide range of
proposals in developing the content of such standards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
In directing the Attorney General to promulgate national standards for
enhancing the prevention, detection, reduction, and punishment of
prison rape. Congress understood that such standards were likely to
require federal, state, and local agencies (as well as private
entities) that operate inmate confinement facilities to incur costs in
implementing and complying with those standards. Given the statue's
aspiration to ``eliminate'' prison rape in the United states, Congress
recognized that costs would need to be expended. Indeed, the statute's
findings (42 U.S.C. section 15601) suggest an assessment by Congress
that the benefits to society of eliminating prison rape are likely to
outweigh any anticipated costs of achieving that goal.
The Department's full discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits
of this rule is included in the rule's Initial Regulatory Impact
Assessment.
Risks:
These regulations are intended to carry out the intent of Congress to
eliminate prison rape. The risks from the failure to promulgate these
regulations are primarily that inmates in Federal, State, and local
facilities would be at higher risk of sexual assault than they would be
if these regulations are promulgated.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 03/10/10 75 FR 11077
ANPRM Comment Period End 05/10/10
NPRM 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Robert Hinchman
Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy
Department of Justice
Room 4252
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: 202 514-8059
Fax: 202 353-2371
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1105-AB34
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-S
[[Page 79587]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Fall 2010 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Secretary Solis has consistently stated that all of the work of the
Department of Labor is focused on achieving Good Jobs for Everyone. The
Labor Department's vision of a ``good job'' includes jobs that:
increase workers' incomes and narrow wage and income
inequality;
assure workers are paid their wages and overtime;
increase workers' incomes and narrow wage and income
inequality;
assure workers are paid their wages and overtime;
are in safe and healthy workplaces, and fair and diverse
workplaces;
provide workplace flexibility for family and personal care-
giving;
improve health benefits and retirement security for all
workers; and
assure workers have a voice in the workplace.
To achieve this goal, the Department is using every tool in its
toolbox, including increased enforcement actions, increased education
and outreach, and targeted regulatory actions. Because the Department
cannot be in every workplace every day, our targeted regulatory actions
are centered on two broad themes--Plan/Prevent/Protect, and Openness
and Transparency. These unifying themes seek to foster a new calculus
that strengthens protections for workers and results in significantly
increased compliance. Employers and other regulated entities must take
full ownership over their adherence to Department regulations. The
Department also hopes that with greater openness and transparency,
workers will be in a better position to judge whether their workplace
is one that values health and safety, work-life balance, and diversity.
Plan/Prevent/Protect Compliance Strategy
In the fall 2010 regulatory agenda, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA),
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and the Wage
and Hour Division (WHD) will all propose regulatory actions that would
require employers to develop programs to address specific compliance
issues within each agency's portfolio. Although the specifics will vary
by law, industry, and regulated enterprise, the Plan/Prevent/Protect
strategy seeks to remind employers and other regulated entities that
they are responsible for full compliance with the law every day, not
just when Department inspectors come calling. As announced with the
spring 2010 regulatory agenda, the strategy will require employers and
other regulated entities to:
``Plan'': Create a plan for identifying and remediating risks
of legal violations and other risks to workers--for example, a plan to
inspect their workplaces for safety hazards that might injure or kill
workers. Workers will be given opportunities to participate in the
creation of the plans. In addition, the plans would be made available
to workers so they can fully understand them and help to monitor their
implementation.
``Prevent'': Thoroughly and completely implement the plan in a
manner that prevents legal violations. The plan cannot be a mere paper
process. This will not be an exercise in drafting a plan only to put it
on a shelf. The plan must be fully implemented.
``Protect'': Verify on a regular basis that the plan's
objectives are being met. The plan must actually protect workers from
health and safety risks and other violations of their workplace rights.
Employers and other regulated entities who fail to take these steps to
comprehensively address the risks, hazards, and inequities in their
workplaces will be considered out of compliance with the law and,
depending upon the agency and the substantive law it is enforcing,
subject to remedial action. But employers, unions, and others who
follow the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy will assure
compliance with employment laws before Labor Department enforcement
personnel arrive at their doorsteps. Most important, they will assure
that workers get the safe, healthy, diverse, family-friendly, and fair
workplaces they deserve.
Openness and Transparency: Tools for Achieving Compliance
Greater openness and transparency continues to be central to the
Department's compliance and regulatory strategies. The fall 2010
regulatory plan demonstrates the Department's continued commitment to
conducting the people's business with openness and transparency, not
only as good government and stakeholder engagement strategies, but as
important means to achieve compliance with the employment laws
administered and enforced by the Department. Openness and transparency
will not only enhance agencies' enforcement actions but will encourage
greater levels of compliance by the regulated community and enhance
awareness among workers of their rights and benefits. When employers,
unions, workers, advocates, and members of the public have greater
access to information concerning workplace conditions and expectations,
then we all become partners in the endeavor to create Good Jobs for
Everyone.
Worker Protection Responsiveness
The Department believes Plan/Prevent/Protect and increased Openness and
Transparency will result in gradual improvements to worker health and
safety. However, when the Department identifies specific hazards and
risks to worker health, safety, security or fairness, we will utilize
our regulatory powers to limit the risk to workers. The fall 2010
regulatory plan includes examples of such regulatory initiatives to
address such specific concerns.
MSHA is planning several regulatory initiatives to respond to specific
health and safety needs of workers: (1) MSHA plans to issue an
emergency temporary standard (ETS) covering the Maintenance of
Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines, (2) MSHA
advanced the publication date for the proposed rule covering
Examinations of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines from March 2011 to
October 2010, and (3) MSHA decided not to publish a request for
information on Safety and Health Management Programs for Mines and is
instead planning to hold a series of public meetings in October 2010
followed by the publication of a proposed rule in June 2011.
OSHA plans to issue a proposed rule that will update fatality and
catastrophe reporting requirements so the Agency receives more timely
information on a broader range of catastrophic events, which will help
OSHA conduct more responsive investigations.
Crystalline silica exposure is one of the most serious hazards workers
face. OSHA and MSHA are both proposing to address worker exposures to
crystalline silica through the promulgation and enforcement of a
comprehensive health standard.
[[Page 79588]]
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
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. Long-
recognized health hazards such as silica, beryllium, and emerging
hazards such as food flavorings containing diacetyl place American
workers at risk of serious disease and death and are initiatives on
OSHA's regulatory agenda. In addition to targeting specific hazards,
OSHA is focusing on systematic processes that will modernize the
culture of safety in America's workplaces.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Infectious Diseases
OSHA is considering the need for regulatory action to address the risk
to workers exposed to infectious diseases in healthcare and other
related high-risk environments. The Agency is considering an approach
that would combine elements of the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect
strategy with established infection control practices. The Agency
received strong stakeholder participation in response to its May 2010
request for information on infectious diseases and is currently
reviewing the docket.
In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance sector as a whole had
16.5 million employees. Healthcare workplaces can range from small,
private practices of physicians to hospitals that employ thousands of
workers. In addition, healthcare is increasingly being provided in
other settings such as nursing homes, free-standing surgical and
outpatient centers, emergency care clinics, patients' homes, and pre-
hospitalization emergency care settings. OSHA is interested in all
routes of infectious disease transmission in healthcare settings not
already covered by its bloodborne pathogens standard (e.g., contact,
droplet, and airborne). The Agency is particularly concerned by studies
that indicate that transmission of infectious diseases to both patients
and healthcare workers may be occurring as a result of incomplete
adherence to recognized, but voluntary, infection control measures.
Another concern is the movement of healthcare delivery from the
traditional hospital setting, with its greater infrastructure and
resources to effectively implement infection control measures, into
more diverse and smaller workplace setting with less infrastructure and
fewer resources, but with an expanding worker population.
Injury and illness Prevention Program (12P2)
OSHA's I2P2 program is the prototype for the Department's Plan/Prevent/
Protect strategy. OSHA's first step in this important rulemaking was to
hold stakeholder meetings. Stakeholder meetings were held in East
Brunswick, NJ; Dallas, Texas; Washington, DC; and Sacramento,
California, beginning in June 2010 and ending in August 2010. More than
200 stakeholders participated in these meetings, and in addition,
nearly 300 stakeholders attended as observers. The proposed rule will
explore requiring employers to provide their employees with
opportunities to participate in the development and implementation of
an injury and illness prevention program, including a systematic
process to proactively and continuously address workplace safety and
health hazards. This rule will involve planning, implementing,
evaluating, and improving processes and activities that promote worker
safety and health, and address the needs of special categories of
workers (such as youth, aging, and immigrant workers). OSHA's efforts
to protect workers under the age of 18 will be undertaken in
cooperation with the Department's Wage and Hour Division, which has
responsibility for enforcing the child labor provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. OSHA has substantial evidence showing that
employers that have implemented similar injury and illness prevention
programs have significantly reduced injuries and illnesses in their
workplaces. The new rule would build on OSHA's existing Safety and
Health Program Management Guidelines and lessons learned from
successful approaches and best practices that have been applied by
companies participating in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program and
Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, and similar industry
and international initiatives.
Addressing Targeted Hazards
Silica
In order to target one of the most serious hazards workers face, 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, especially 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 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, MSHA will also utilize
information provided by OSHA to undertake regulatory action related to
silica exposure in mines.
Backing Operations
In order to target one of most serious hazards that construction
workers face, OSHA is proposing to address worker exposures to the
dangers inherent in backing operations through the promulgation and
enforcement of a revised construction standard. NIOSH reports that half
of the fatalities involving construction equipment occur while the
equipment is backing. Backing accidents cause 500 deaths and 15,000
injuries per year. Emerging technologies in the field of backing
operations include after market devices, such as camera, radar, and
sonar, to help monitor the presence of workers on foot in blind areas,
and new monitoring technology, such as tag-based warning systems that
use radio frequency (RFID) and magnetic field generators on equipment
to detect electronic tags worn by workers. OSHA is developing this
proposal in consultation with MSHA, which will issue an Emergency
Temporary Standard concerning Proximity Detection.
Openness and Transparency
Hazard Communication
Hearings on OSHA's proposal to modify its Hazard Communication standard
have helped the agency to promote transparency in the communication of
chemical hazard information. These hearings gathered information to
assist OSHA in creating consistency between its current Hazard
Communication standard (HCS) and the United Nations' Globally
Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).
This rulemaking
[[Page 79589]]
involves changing the criteria for classifying health and physical
hazards to require information regarding the severity of the hazard, a
standardized order of information for safety data sheets, and adopting
standardized labeling requirements that would be understandable for
low-literacy workers or those who do not speak English. The HCS covers
over 945,000 hazardous chemical products in 7 million American
workplaces and gives workers the ``right to know'' about chemical
hazards to which they are exposed. OSHA and other Federal agencies have
participated in long-term international negotiations to develop the
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.
Modernizing Recordkeeping
In the first half of this year, OSHA held informal meetings to gather
information from experts and stakeholders regarding the modification of
its current injury and illness data collection system that will help
the agency, employers, employees, researchers, and the public prevent
workplace injuries and illnesses, as well as support President Obama's
Open Government Initiative. Under the proposed rule, OSFIA will explore
increasing its legal authority to require employers to electronically
submit to the Agency any data required by part 1904 (Recording and
Reporting Occupational Injuries). In addition it will set ongoing
electronic submission requirements of data for a defined set of
establishments. This two-part rule will give OSHA the flexibility to
define the scope and frequency of data collection without having to
undertake additional rulemakings. With OMB approval, OSHA will be able
to conduct data collections ranging from the annual collection of data
from a handful of employers to the real-time collection of all part
1904 data from all covered employers. In addition, OSHA will be able to
request additional data elements that employers are not required to
maintain, such as data on race and ethnicity, as a non-mandatory
component of a given data collection. OSHA learned from stakeholders
that most large employers already maintain their part 1904 data
electronically; as a result, electronic submission will constitute a
minimal burden on these employers, while providing a wealth of data to
help OSHA, employers, employees, researchers, and the public prevent
workplace injuries and illnesses.
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is the worker protection
agency focused on the prevention of death, disease, and injury from
mining and the promotion of safe and healthful workplaces for the
Nation's miners. The Department believes that every worker has a right
to a safe and healthy workplace. Workers should never have to sacrifice
their lives for their livelihood, and all workers deserve to come home
to their families at the end of their shift safe and whole. MSHA's
approach to reducing workplace fatalities and injuries includes
promulgating and enforcing mandatory health and safety standards.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Safety and Health Management Programs for Mines
Year after year, many mines experience low injury and illness rates and
low violation rates. For these mine operators, preventing harm to their
miners is more than compliance with safety and health requirements; it
reflects the embodiment of a culture of safety--from the CEO to the
miner. This culture of safety derives from a commitment to an
effective, comprehensive safety and health management program. Since
compliance with safety and health standards is the responsibility of
mine operators, MSHA plans to publish a proposed rule to require mine
operators to develop comprehensive Safety and Health Management
Programs for Mines. MSHA believes that operators with effective safety
and health management programs would identify and correct hazards in a
more timely manner, resulting in fewer accidents, injuries and
illnesses. To help develop the proposal, MSHA held public meetings and
gathered information from worker organizations, industry, academia,
government, and safety and health professionals about model safety and
health programs.
Examinations of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines for Violations of
Mandatory Health or Safety Standards
To complement the safety and health management programs proposed rule,
MSHA also plans to issue a proposed rule to address section 303(d) of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act that requires mine operators to
conduct examinations, in areas where miners work or travel, for
violations of mandatory health or safety standards. The proposal would
assure that underground coal mine operators find and fix violations of
mandatory health or safety standards, thereby improving health and
safety for miners.
Pattern of Violations
MSHA has determined that the existing pattern criteria and procedures
contained in 30 CFR part 104 do not reflect the statutory intent for
section 104(e) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act). The legislative history of the Mine Act explains that Congress
intended the pattern of violations to be an enforcement tool for
operators who have demonstrated a disregard for the health and safety
of miners. These mine operators, who have a chronic history of
persistent significant and substantial (S&S) violations, needlessly
expose miners to the same hazards again and again. This indicates a
serious safety and health management problem at a mine. The goal of the
pattern of violations proposed rule is to compel operators to manage
health and safety conditions so that the root causes of S&S violations
are found and fixed before they become a hazard to miners. The proposal
would reflect statutory intent, simplify the pattern of violations
criteria, and improve consistency in applying the pattern of violations
criteria.
Addressing Targeted Hazards
Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal
Mines
To help prevent explosion hazards, MSHA issued an emergency temporary
standard (ETS) in response to the grave danger that miners in
underground bituminous coal mines face when accumulations of coal dust
are not made inert. MSHA concluded from investigations of mine
explosions and other reports that immediate action was necessary to
protect miners. Accumulations of coal dust can ignite, resulting in an
explosion, or after an explosion, accumulations can propagate,
increasing the severity of explosions. The ETS requires mine operators
to increase the incombustible content of combined coal dust, rock dust,
and other dust to at least 80 percent in underground bituminous coal
mines. The ETS strengthens the protections for miners by reducing both
the potential for and the severity of coal mine explosions.
Regulating Crystalline Silica Exposure
[[Page 79590]]
The Agency's regulatory actions also 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 surface and underground mines) and large and
small mines. As mentioned previously, as part of the Secretary's
strategy for securing safe and healthy workplaces, both MSHA and OSHA
will be undertaking regulatory actions 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. In its proposed rule, MSHA plans to follow the recommendation of
the Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and other groups to address the
exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica. As another example of
intra-departmental collaboration, MSHA intends to consider OSHA's work
on the health effects of occupational exposure to silica and OSHA's
risk assessment in developing the appropriate standard for the mining
industry.
Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, including Continuous
Personal Dust Monitors
MSHA will continue its regulatory action related to preventing Black
Lung disease. Data from the NIOSH indicate increased prevalence of coal
workers pneumoconiosis (CWP) ``clusters'' in several geographical
areas, particularly in the Southern Appalachian Region. MSHA published
a notice of proposed rulemaking to address continued risk to coal
miners from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. This regulatory
action is 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. The major provisions of the proposal would
lower the existing exposure limit from 2.0 mg/m3 to 1.0 mg/m3 over a 2-
year phase-in period, provide for single full-shift compliance sampling
under both mine operator and MSHA inspector sampling programs, and
establish sampling requirements for use of the continuous personal dust
monitors.
Proximity Detection Systems
MSHA will issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to address the
grave danger that miners face when working near mobile equipment in
underground mines. MSHA has concluded, from investigations of accidents
involving mobile equipment and other reports, that immediate action is
necessary to protect miners. To date, in 2010, there have been 5
fatalities resulting from crushing and pinning accidents. Mobile
equipment can pin, crush, or strike a miner working near the equipment.
Proximity detection technology can prevent these types of accidents.
Proximity detection systems can be installed on mining machinery to
detect the presence of personnel or equipment within a certain distance
of the machine. The ETS would strengthen the protection for underground
miners by reducing the potential of pinning, crushing or striking
hazards associated with working close to mobile equipment. As a part of
the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and healthy workplaces, OSHA
will also undertake regulatory action related to reducing injuries and
fatalities to workers in close proximity to moving equipment and
vehicles.
Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
The Wage and Hour Division is responsible for administering and
enforcing a number of laws that establish the minimum standards for
wages and working conditions in the United States. Collectively, these
labor standards cover most private, state, and local government
employment.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Right To Know Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
WHD intends to publish a proposed rule updating the recordkeeping
regulation issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to assist
employers in planning to protect workers' entitlement to wages that
they have earned and bring greater transparency and openness to the
workplace. The proposed rule would address notification of workers'
status as employees or some other status such as independent
contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of
the FLSA. The proposed rulemaking would also explore requiring
employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their
employees. This greater transparency will provide workers with
essential information about their employment status and earnings,
consistent with the Secretary's strategic vision. This greater
transparency will in turn better ensure compliance by regulated
entities and assist the Department with its enforcement efforts. This
initiative contributes to the Department's efforts to prevent
misclassification that denies workers employment law protections to
which they are entitled.
As part of this Departmentwide initiative, OSHA's Injury and Illness
Prevention Program NPRM and OFCCP's NPRM on Construction Contractor
Affirmative Action Requirements, propose to also address employer
analyses and worker notification as to whether an individual is an
employee or is an independent business, volunteer, or trainee.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Through the work of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,
DOL ensures that the contractors and sub-contractors doing business at
over 200,000 establishments provide equal employment opportunities--a
fair and diverse workplace. OFCCP ensures workers are recruited, hired,
trained, promoted, terminated, and compensated in a non-discriminatory
manner by Federal contractors and helps workers in the Federal
contractor sector by strengthening affirmative action and by combating
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran.
Construction Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements
OFCCP will publish a proposed rule that would enhance the effectiveness
of the affirmative action program requirements for Federal and
federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors. The
proposed rule would strengthen the regulations that set forth the
actions construction contractors are required to take to implement
their affirmative action programs particularly in the areas of
recruitment, training, and apprenticeships. OFCCP is coordinating with
the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), which is developing a
proposed regulation revising the equal opportunity regulatory framework
under the National Apprenticeship Act.
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) 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
[[Page 79591]]
Pension Protection Act of 2006, as well as new health coverage
provisions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
(the Affordable Care 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. EBSA is charged with
protecting approximately 150 million Americans covered by an estimated
708,000 private retirement plans, 2.6 million health plans, and similar
numbers of other welfare benefit plans which together hold $5.2
trillion in assets.
EBSA will continue to issue guidance implementing the health reform
provisions of the Affordable Care Act and other laws, such as the
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, to help provide better
quality health care for American workers and their families. EBSA's
regulations reduce discrimination in health coverage, promote better
access to quality coverage, and protect the ability of individuals and
businesses to keep their current health coverage. Many regulations are
joint rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and
the Treasury.
Using regulatory changes to produce greater openness and transparency
is an integral part of EBSA's contribution to a Departmentwide
compliance strategy. These efforts will not only enhance EBSA's
enforcement toolbox but will encourage greater levels of compliance by
the regulated community and enhance awareness among workers of their
rights and benefits. Several proposals from the EBSA agenda expand
disclosure requirements, substantially enhancing the availability of
information to employee benefit plan participants and beneficiaries and
employers, and strengthening the retirement security of America's
workers.
Health Reform Implementation
These regulations require better disclosure to participants and
beneficiaries regarding their health plan coverage. These disclosures
must now provide new and better descriptions regarding:
Certain enrollment opportunities and access to health coverage; rights
to internal claims and appeals, and external review of health plan
denials; access to providers; and a group health plan's status as a
grandfathered health plan, which affects consumer protections under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Enhancing participant protections
EBSA recently proposed 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. The amendments would take
into account current practices of investment advisers and the
expectations of plan officials and participants who receive investment
advice. This initiative is 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.
Lifetime Income Options
In February 2010, EBSA published a request for information concerning
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. EBSA recently held a hearing with the Department of
the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to further explore these
possibilities during the fall 2010 regulatory cycle. This initiative is
intended to assure retirement security for workers in all jobs
regardless of income level by helping to ensure that participants and
beneficiaries have the benefit of their plan savings throughout
retirement.
Promoting Openness and Transparency
In addition to its health care reform and participant protection
initiatives, EBSA is pursuing a regulatory program that, as reflected
in the Unified Agenda, is designed to encourage, foster, and promote
openness, transparency, and communication with respect to the
management and operations of pension plans, as well as participant
rights and benefits under such plans. Among other things, EBSA will be
issuing a final rule that will ensure that the participants and
beneficiaries in participant-directed individual account plans are
provided the information they need, including information about plan
and investment-related fees and expenses, to make informed decisions
about the management of their individual accounts and the investment of
their retirement savings (RIN 1210-AB07); EBSA also will be issuing a
proposed rule addressing the requirement that administrators of defined
benefit pension plans annually disclose the funding status of their
plan to the plan's participants and beneficiaries (RIN l210-AB18).
EBSA's Unified Agenda also includes the publication of a proposed rule
requiring the automatic furnishing of a statement to pension plan
participants informing them of their accrued and vested pension
benefits, as well as other information pertinent to their retirement
security (RIN 1210-AB20). In addition, EBSA will be amending the
disclosure requirements applicable to plan investment options,
including Qualified Default Investment Alternatives, to better ensure
that participants understand the operations and risks associated with
investments in target date funds (RIN 1210-AB38). A complete listing of
EBSA's regulatory initiatives (both Plan and non-Plan items) is
provided in the Unified Agenda portion of this document.
Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and
enforces most provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA promotes labor-management
transparency by requiring unions, employers, labor-relations
consultants, and others to file reports that 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. Besides enforcing these
provisions, OLMS also ensures the financial accountability of unions,
their officers and employees, through enforcement and voluntary
compliance efforts. Because of these activities, OLMS better ensures
that workers have a more effective voice in the governance of their
unions, which in turn affords them a more effective voice in their
workplaces. OLMS also administers certain provisions of Executive Order
13496 that require Federal contractors to notify their employees
concerning their rights under Federal labor laws.
Openness and Transparency
Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Consultant Reporting under the
LMRDA
OLMS is proposing a regulatory initiative to provide workers with
information critical to their effective participation in the workplace,
both as union members and as employees. OLMS intends to propose
regulations to better implement the public disclosure objectives of the
LMRDA in situations where an employer engages a consultant
[[Page 79592]]
in order 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 consultant to persuade employees
concerning their rights to organize and collectively bargain, 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 is also required to report 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 is reconsidering the current
policy concerning the scope of the ``advice exception.'' When workers
have the necessary information about arrangements that have been made
by their employer to persuade them whether or not to form, join or
assist a union, they are better able to make a more informed choice
about representation.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers and
oversees programs that prepare workers for good jobs at good wages by
providing high quality job training, employment, labor market
information, and income maintenance services through its national
network of One-Stop centers. The programs within ETA promote pathways
to economic independence for individuals and families. Through several
laws, ETA is charged with administering numerous employment and
training programs designed to assist the American worker in developing
the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are sought after in the 21st
century's economy.
Openness and Transparency
Temporary Non Agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United
States
As part of the Department's labor certification responsibilities, ETA
certifies whether U.S. workers capable of performing the jobs for which
employers are seeking foreign workers are available and whether the
employment of foreign workers will adversely affect the wages and
working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. Through the Wage
and Hour Division (WHD), the Department enforces compliance with the
conditions of an H-2B petition and Department of Labor-approved
temporary labor certification.
The proposed rule seeks to ensure that only those employers who
demonstrate a real temporary need for foreign workers will have access
to the H-2B program. The proposed rule also will seek to provide U.S.
workers with greater access to the jobs employers wish to fill with
temporary H-2B workers through more robust recruitment by employers to
demonstrate the unavailability of U.S. workers and through the creation
of a national, electronic job registry. In addition, the Department is
reviewing the current wage determination methodology to ensure that
wages are not being adversely affected across industries and
occupations. The proposed rule will explore strengthening existing
worker protections, establishing new protections, and enhancing ETA
program integrity measures and WHD enforcement to ensure adequate
protections for both U.S. and H-2B workers. The proposal will include
greater transparency and openness to provide U.S. workers with greater
information and access to the job opportunities.
Addressing Targeted Concerns of Workers
Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment
of Regulations
The revision of the National Apprenticeship Act Equal Opportunity in
Apprenticeship and Training (EEO) regulations is a critical element in
the Department's vision to promote and expand registered apprenticeship
opportunities in the 21st Century while safeguarding the welfare and
safety of all apprentices. In October 2008, ETA issued a final rule
updating 29 CFR part 29, the regulatory framework for registration of
apprenticeship programs and apprentices, and administration of the
National Apprenticeship System. The companion EEO regulations, 29 CFR
part 30, have not been amended since 1978. ETA proposes to update part
30 EEO in the Apprenticeship and Training regulations to ensure that
they act in concert with the 2008 revised part 29 rule. The proposed
EEO regulations also will further Secretary Solis' vision of good jobs
for everyone by ensuring that apprenticeship program sponsors develop
and fully implement affirmative action efforts that provide equal
opportunity for all applicants to apprenticeship and apprentices,
regardless of race, gender, national origin, or disability. ETA is
coordinating with OFCCP, which is developing a proposed regulation that
would enhance the effectiveness of the affirmative action program
requirements for Federal and federally assisted construction
contractors and subcontractors.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
94. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
sec 201, 202, 205, 211, 301, 302, and 303 of EO 11246, as amended; 30
FR 12319; 32 FR 14303, as amended by EO 12086
CFR Citation:
41 CFR 60-1; 41 CFR 60-4
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would revise the regulations
in 41 CFR part 60-4 implementing the affirmative action requirements of
Executive Order 11246 that are applicable to Federal and federally
assisted construction contractors. The NPRM will strengthen and enhance
the effectiveness of the affirmative action program requirements for
Federal and federally-assisted construction contractors and
subcontractors, particularly in the area of recruitment and job
training.
Statement of Need:
The regulations implementing construction contractor affirmative action
obligations under Executive Order 11246, as amended, were last revised
in 1980. Recent data show that disparities in the representation of
women and racial minorities continue to exist in on-site construction
occupations in the construction industry. The NPRM would remove
outdated regulatory provisions, propose a new method for establishing
affirmative action goals, and propose
[[Page 79593]]
other revisions to the affirmative action requirements that reflect the
realities of the labor market and employment practices in the
construction industry today.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is not required by statute or court order. Legal Authority:
Sections 201, 202, 205, 211, 301, 302, and 303 of E.O. 11246, as
amended, 30 FR 12319: 32 FR 14303, as amended by E.O. 12086.
Alternatives:
Regulatory alternatives will be addressed as the NPRM is developed
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There may be some additional costs to contractors as a result of the
increased scope of required actions. The benefits would likely include
increased diversity in construction workplaces and increased
opportunities for women and minorities to get on-site construction
jobs. More detailed cost and benefit analyses will be made as the NPRM
is developed.
Risks:
Failure to provide updated regulations may impede the equal opportunity
rights of some workers in protected classes.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Sandra M. Dillon
Deputy Director, Division of Policy, Planning and Program Development
Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
N3422
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0102
TDD Phone: 202 693-1337
Fax: 202 693-1304
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1215-AB81
RIN: 1250-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
95. PERSUADER AGREEMENTS: EMPLOYER AND LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTANT
REPORTING UNDER THE LMRDA
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 overbroad 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. sections 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 06/00/11
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
[[Page 79594]]
Agency Contact:
Andrew R. Davis
Chief, Division of Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-
Management Standards
Department of Labor
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Room N-5609, FP Building
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1254
Fax: 202 693-1340
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1215-AB79
RIN: 1245-AA03
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
96. RIGHT TO KNOW 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 their status as the
employer's employee or some other status, such as an independent
contractor, and if an employee, how their pay is computed. The
Department also proposes to clarify that the mandatory manual
preparation of ``homeworker'' handbooks applies only to employers of
employees performing homework in the restricted industries. The title
of this proposed rule has changed to better reflect the purpose of this
action.
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 update
the requirements for live-in domestic employees and, to clarify that
the mandatory manual preparation of ``homeworker'' handbooks applies
only to employers of employees performing homework in the restricted
industries.
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:
The Department will prepare estimates of the anticipated costs and
benefits associated with the proposed rule.
Risks:
This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State, Tribal
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Montaniel Navarro
Fair Labor Standards Act Branch Chief, Division of Enforcement Policy
Department of Labor
Wage and Hour Division
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S-3502
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0067
Fax: 202 693-1387
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1215-AB78
RIN: 1235-AA04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
97. LABOR CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND ENFORCEMENT FOR TEMPORARY
EMPLOYMENT IN OCCUPATIONS OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE OR REGISTERED NURSING
IN THE UNITED STATES (H-2B WORKERS)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B)); 8 USC 1184(c)(1); 8 CFR 214.2(h)
CFR Citation:
20 CFR 655
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations require employers
to apply for a temporary labor certification from the Department of
Labor before H-2B visas may be approved. DOL certifies that there are
not sufficient U.S. worker(s) who are capable of performing the
temporary services or labor at the time of an application for a visa,
and that the employment of the H-2B workers will not adversely affect
the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
This regulation proposes to re-engineer the H-2B program in order to
enhance transparency and strengthen program integrity and protections
of both U.S. workers and H-2B workers.
Statement of Need:
The Department has determined that a new rulemaking effort is necessary
for
[[Page 79595]]
the H-2B program. The policy underpinnings of the current regulation,
e.g., streamlining the H-2B process to defer many determinations of
program compliance until after an application has been adjudicated, do
not provide an adequate level of protection for either U.S. or foreign
workers. The proposed rule seeks to enhance worker protections and
increase the availability of job opportunities to qualified U.S.
workers.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Department of Labor's authority to revise these regulations derives
from 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1) and 8 CFR
214.2(h).
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 are under development. The Department of Labor is seeking
information on potential additional or actual costs from employers and
other interested parties through the NPRM in order to better assess the
costs and benefits of the proposed provisions of the program. The
proposed changes are thought to raise ``novel legal or policy issues''
but are not economically significant within the context of Executive
Order 12866 and are not a ``major rule'' under section 804 for the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Risks:
This action does not affect the public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
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-AB58
_______________________________________________________________________
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 1977. The
companion regulations, 29 CFR part 30, Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) in Apprenticeship and Training, have not been amended since 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 EEO law, as it has developed since 1978, 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 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, the ADA, and recent
revisions to title 29 CFR part 29.
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:
The proposed changes are thought to raise ``novel legal or policy
issue'' but are not economically significant within the context of
Executive Order 12866 and are not a ``major rule'' under Section 804 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Risks:
This action does not affect the public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State, Tribal
[[Page 79596]]
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--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
99. LIFETIME INCOME OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES IN
RETIREMENT PLANS
Priority:
Other Significant
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. 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 02/02/10 75 FR 5253
RFI Comment Period End 05/03/10
Public Hearing Notice 08/10/10 75 FR 48367
Public Hearing 09/14/10
Review Public Record 04/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
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
Room N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB33
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
100. DEFINITION OF ``FIDUCIARY''
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
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.
[[Page 79597]]
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 10/22/10 75 FR 65263
NPRM Comment Period End 01/20/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
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
Room N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
101. 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 10 mg/m3 divided by the percentage of quartz where the quartz
percent is greater than 5 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 (100 ug) 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. 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
based on sound science to eliminate or reduce the hazards with the
broadest and most serious consequences. 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 improve health protection from that afforded by
the existing standards. MSHA will consider alternative methods of
addressing miners' exposures 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 and 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 07/00/11
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
102. LOWERING MINERS' EXPOSURE TO COAL MINE DUST, INCLUDING CONTINUOUS
PERSONAL DUST MONITORS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811; 30 USC 813(h)
CFR Citation:
30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 72; 30 CFR 75; 30 CFR 90
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established the
first comprehensive respirable dust
[[Page 79598]]
standards for coal mines. These standards were designed to reduce the
incidence of coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP) or (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. This proposed rule is an important element
in MSHA's Comprehensive Black Lung Reduction Strategy (Strategy) to
``End Black Lung Now'' and combines the following rulemaking actions:
(1) ``Occupational Exposure to Coal Mine Dust (Lowering Exposure),''
RIN 1219-AB64; (2) ``Verification of Underground Coal Mine Operators'
Dust Control Plans and Compliance Sampling for Respirable Dust,'' RIN
1219-AB14; (3) ``Determination of Concentration of Respirable Coal Mine
Dust,'' RIN 1219-AB18; and (4) ``Respirable Coal Mine Dust: Continuous
Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM),'' RIN 1219-AB48.
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 developed 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 coal 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 developed a risk
assessment to accompany the proposed rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/19/10 75 FR 64412
Hearings 11/15/10 75 FR 69617
NPRM Comment Period End 02/28/11
NPRM-Rescheduling of
Public Hearings;
Correction 11/30/10 75 FR 73995
Post Hearing Comment
Period End 02/28/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/BlackLung/homepage2009.asp
URL For Public Comments:
http://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-AB64
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
103. SAFETY AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR MINES
Priority:
Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811 and 812
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
MSHA held public meetings and gathered information and suggestions from
the mining community on effective, comprehensive safety and health
management programs, including programs used in the mining industry.
MSHA will use all information received to develop a proposed rule for
safety and health management programs to eliminate hazards and prevent
injuries and illnesses at mines.
Statement of Need:
Mining is one of the most hazardous industries in this country. Yet
year after year, many mines experience low injury and illness rates and
low violation rates. For these mine operators, preventing harm to their
miners is more than compliance with safety and health requirements; it
reflects an embodiment of a culture of safety--from CEO to the miner to
the contractor. This culture of safety derives from a commitment to a
systematic, effective, comprehensive management of safety and health at
mines with full participation of all miners.
MSHA believes requiring effective safety and health management
[[Page 79599]]
programs in mining will create a sustained industry-wide effort to
eliminate hazards and will result in the prevention of injuries and
illnesses.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of this standard is authorized by section 101 of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.
Alternatives:
No reasonable alternatives to this regulation would be as comprehensive
or as effective in eliminating hazards and preventing injuries and
illnesses.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to
accompany the proposed rule.
Risks:
The lack of a comprehensive safety and health management program
contributes to a higher incidence of injury and illness rates and
higher violation rates.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/11
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-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
104. PATTERN OF VIOLATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
30 USC 814(e); 30 USC 957
CFR Citation:
30 CFR 104
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
MSHA is preparing a proposed rule to revise the Agency's existing
regulation for pattern of violations contained in 30 CFR part 104. MSHA
has determined that the existing pattern criteria and procedures do not
reflect the statutory intent for section 104(e) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) that operators manage health
and safety conditions at mines so that the root causes of significant
and substantial (S&S) violations are addressed before they become a
hazard to the health and safety of miners. The legislative history of
the Mine Act explains that Congress intended the pattern of violations
tool be used for operators who have demonstrated a disregard for the
health and safety of miners. The proposal would reflect statutory
intent, simplify the pattern of violations criteria, and improve
consistency in applying the patterns of violations criteria.
Statement of Need:
The pattern of violations provision was a new enforcement tool in the
Mine Act. The Mine Act places the ultimate responsibility for ensuring
the safety and health of miners on mine operators. The goal of the
pattern of violations proposed rule is to compel operators to manage
health and safety conditions so that the root causes of S&S violations
are found and fixed before they become a hazard to miners. MSHA's
existing regulation is not consistent with the language, purpose, and
legislative history of the Mine Act and hinders the Agency's use of
pattern of violations to identify chronic violators who thumb their
noses at the law by a continuing cycle of citation and abatement.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of this standard is authorized by sections 104(e) and 957
of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Alternatives:
MSHA will consider alternative criteria for determining when a pattern
of significant and substantial violations exists in order to improve
health and safety conditions in mines and provide protection for
miners. Congress provided the Secretary with broad discretion in
determining criteria, recognizing that MSHA may need to modify the
criteria as Agency experience dictates.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA will prepare estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits
associated with the proposed rule.
Risks:
Mine operators with a chronic history of persistent serious violations
needlessly expose miners to the same hazards again and again. These
operators demonstrate a disregard for the safety and health of miners;
this indicates a serious safety and health management problem at the
mine. The existing regulation has not been effective in reducing
repeated risks to miners at these mines.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
http://www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm
URL For Public Comments:
http://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-AB73
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
105. MAINTENANCE OF INCOMBUSTIBLE CONTENT OF ROCK DUST IN
UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Priority:
Other Significant
[[Page 79600]]
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811, 864
CFR Citation:
30 CFR sec 75.403
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) issued an emergency
temporary standard (ETS) under section 101(b) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 in response to the grave danger that
miners in underground bituminous coal mines face when accumulations of
coal dust are not made inert. MSHA concluded from investigations of
mine explosions and other reports that immediate action was necessary
to protect miners.
Accumulations of coal dust can ignite, resulting in an explosion, or
after an explosion, it can propagate, increasing the severity of the
explosion. The ETS requires mine operators to increase the
incombustible content of combined coal dust, rock dust, and other dust
to at least 80 percent in underground areas of bituminous mines. The
ETS further requires that the incombustible content of such combined
dust be raised 0.4 percent for each 0.1 percent of methane present. The
ETS strengthens the protection for miners by reducing the potential for
a coal mine explosion.
Statement of Need:
MSHA determined that a revised standard for ``Maintenance of
Incombustible Content of Rock Dust'' is necessary to immediately
protect underground coal miners from hazards of coal dust explosions.
This determination is based on: (1) MSHA's accident investigation
reports of mine explosions in intake air courses that involved coal
dust (Dubaniewicz 2009); (2) the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health's Report of Investigations 9679 (Cashdollar et al.
2010), ``Recommendations for a New Rock Dusting Standard to Prevent
Coal Dust Explosions in Intake Airways``; and (3) MSHA's experience and
data.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of this standard is authorized by section 101(b) of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Alternatives:
MSHA will consider revisions to the ETS, based on public comments
received during the rulemaking process.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA estimates that the ETS would result in approximately $22.0 million
in yearly costs for the underground bituminous coal mining industry.
The ETS provides additional safety protection for miners in underground
bituminous coal mines from the explosion hazard of coal and other
dusts. MSHA estimates that, on average, the ETS would prevent
approximately 1.5 deaths every year and would prevent one additional
injury about every 4 years.
Risks:
Based on NIOSH's data and recommendations, and MSHA's data and
experience, the Secretary determined that miners are exposed to grave
danger in areas of underground bituminous coal mines that are not
properly and sufficiently rock dusted in accordance with the
requirements in this ETS.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Emergency Temporary
Standard 09/23/10 75 FR 57849
Hearing 10/26/10
Hearing 10/28/10
Hearing 11/16/10
Hearing 11/18/10
Comment Period End 12/20/10
Final Action 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
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-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
106. PROXIMITY DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR UNDERGROUND MINES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will issue an
emergency temporary standard (ETS) under section 101(b) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 in response to the grave danger that
miners face when working near mobile equipment in underground mines.
MSHA has concluded, from investigations of accidents involving mobile
equipment and other reports, that immediate action is necessary to
protect miners. To date, in 2010, there have been five fatalities
resulting from crushing and pinning accidents.
Mobile equipment can pin, crush, or strike a miner working near the
equipment. Proximity detection technology can prevent these types of
accidents. The ETS would strengthen the protection for underground
miners by reducing the potential of pinning, crushing or striking
hazards associated with working close to mobile equipment. As a part of
the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and healthy workplaces, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration will undertake regulatory action
related to reducing
[[Page 79601]]
injuries and fatalities to workers in close proximity to moving
equipment and vehicles.
Statement of Need:
Mining is one of the most hazardous industries in this country. Miners
continue to be injured or killed resulting from pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents involving mobile equipment. Equipment is available
to help prevent accidents that cause debilitating injuries and
accidental death.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of this standard is authorized by section 101(b) of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.
Alternatives:
No reasonable alternatives to this regulation would be as comprehensive
or as effective in eliminating hazards and preventing injuries.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA will develop a regulatory economic analysis to accompany the ETS.
Risks:
The lack of proximity detection systems on mobile equipment in
underground mines contributes to a higher incidence of debilitating
injuries and accidental deaths.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information
(RFI) 02/01/10 75 FR 5009
Comment Period Ended 04/02/10
Emergency Temporary
Standard 03/00/11
Final Action 12/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
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-AB65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
107. INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
5 USC 533; 29 USC 657 and 658; 29 USC 660; 29 USC 666; 29 USC 669; 29
USC 673; . . .
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1910
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Employees in health care and other high-risk environments face long-
standing infectious diseases hazards such as tuberculosis (TB),
varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles), and measles (rubeola), as
well as new and emerging infectious disease threats, such as Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and pandemic influenza. Health care
workers and workers in related occupations or who are exposed in other
high-risk environments are at increased risk of contracting TB, SARS,
MRSA, and other infectious diseases that can be transmitted through a
variety of exposure routes. OSHA is concerned about the ability of
employees to continue to provide health care and other critical
services without unreasonably jeopardizing their health.
OSHA is considering the need for a standard to ensure that employers
establish a comprehensive infection control program and control
measures to protect employees from infectious disease exposures to
pathogens that can cause significant disease. Workplaces where such
control measures might be necessary include: health care, emergency
response, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, drug treatment
programs, and other occupational settings where employees can be at
increased risk of exposure to potentially infectious people. A standard
could also apply to laboratories which handle materials that may be a
source of pathogens, and to pathologists, coroners' offices, medical
examiners, and mortuaries.
OSHA published an RFI on May 6, 2010, the comment period closed on
August 4, 2010. OSHA is currently analyzing the comments submitted by
stakeholders.
Statement of Need:
In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance sector as a whole had
16.5 million employees. Healthcare workplaces can range from small
private practices of physicians to hospitals that employ thousands of
workers. In addition, healthcare is increasingly being provided in
other settings such as nursing homes, free-standing surgical and
outpatient centers, emergency care clinics, patients' homes, and
prehospitalization emergency care settings. The Agency is particularly
concerned by studies that indicate that transmission of infectious
diseases to both patients and healthcare workers may be occurring as a
result of incomplete adherence to recognized, but voluntary, infection
control measures. Another concern is the movement of healthcare
delivery from the traditional hospital setting, with its greater
infrastructure and resources to effectively implement infection control
measures, into more diverse and smaller workplace setting with less
infrastructure and fewer resources, but with an expanding worker
population.
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.
[[Page 79602]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.
Risks:
Analysis of risks is still under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information
(RFI) 05/06/10 75 FR 24835
RFI Comment Period End 08/04/10
Analyze Comments 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
108. INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 653; 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
OSHA is developing a rule requiring employers to implement an Injury
and Illness Prevention Program. It involves planning, implementing,
evaluating, and improving processes and activities that protect
employee safety and health. OSHA has substantial data on reductions in
injuries and illnesses from employers who have implemented similar
effective processes. The Agency currently has voluntary Safety and
Health Program Management Guidelines (54 FR 3904-3916), published in
1989. An injury and illness prevention rule would build on these
guidelines as well as lessons learned from successful approaches and
best practices under OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program Safety and
Health Achievement Recognition Program and similar industry and
international initiatives such as American National Standards
Institute/American Industrial Hygiene Association Z10 and Occupational
Health and Safety Assessment Series 18001. Twelve States have similar
rules.
Statement of Need:
There are approximately 5,000 workplace fatalities and approximately
3.5 million serious workplace injuries every year. There are also many
workplace illnesses caused by exposure to common chemical, physical,
and biological agents. OSHA believes that an injury and illness
prevention program is a universal intervention that can be used in a
wide spectrum of workplaces to dramatically reduce the number and
severity of workplace injuries. Such programs have been shown to be
effective in many workplaces in the United States and internationally.
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 alternatives to this rulemaking would be to issue guidance,
recognition programs, or allow for the states to develop individual
regulations. OSHA has used voluntary approaches to address the need,
including publishing Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines in
1989. In addition, OSHA has two recognition programs, the Voluntary
Protection Program (known as VPP), and the Safety and Health
Achievement Recognition Program (known as SHARP). These programs
recognize workplaces with effective safety and health programs. Several
States have issued regulations that require employers to establish
effective safety and health programs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The scope of the proposed rulemaking and the costs and benefits are
still under development for this regulatory action.
Risks:
A detailed risk analysis is underway.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Stakeholder Meetings 06/03/10
Initiate SBREFA 06/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AC48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
109. BACKING OPERATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
[[Page 79603]]
Abstract:
NIOSH reports that half of the fatalities involving construction
equipment occur while the equipment is backing. Backing accidents cause
500 deaths and 15,000 injuries per year. Emerging technologies in the
field of backing operations include after market devices, such as
camera, radar, and sonar, to help monitor the presence of workers on
foot in blind areas, and new monitoring technology, such as tag-based
warning systems that use radio frequency (RFID) and magnetic field
generators on equipment to detect electronic tags worn by workers.
Statement of Need:
A study by the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries found that the
most common primary sources of injury to be trucks (45%), road grading
and surfacing machinery (15%), and cars (15%). That same study showed
that of the 465 vehicle and equipment-related fatalities within work
zones, 318 workers on foot were struck by a vehicle. Incidents
involving backing vehicles were prominent among the worker-on-foot
fatalities that occurred (51%). The primary injury sources of
fatalities of workers on foot struck by a construction vehicle were
trucks (61%) and construction machines (30%). OSHA believes that
regulatory action is necessary to address risks associated with backup
operations.
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:
Analysis of risks is still under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
RFI 05/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Ben Bare
Acting 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-AC52
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
110. 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 proposed by the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1968 (PEL=10mg/cubic meter/(% silica +
2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for construction and shipyards
(derived from ACGIH's 1970 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 has published recommended standards for
addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction
Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended
comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for
methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical
surveillance. OSHA is currently developing a NPRM.
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. In 2005, the
most recent year for which data is available, silicosis was identified
on 161 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 has designated crystalline silica as carcinogenic to humans, and
the National Toxicology Program has concluded that respirable
crystalline silica is 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 diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement
data indicate that some
[[Page 79604]]
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 shipyard 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.
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
Initiated Peer Review of
Health Effects and
Risk Assessment 05/22/09
Completed Peer Review 01/24/10
NPRM 04/00/11
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
111. OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS RECORDING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS--MODERNIZING OSHA'S REPORTING SYSTEM
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 657
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1904
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
OSHA is proposing changes to its reporting system for occupational
injuries and illnesses. An updated and modernized reporting system
would enable a more efficient and timely collection of data and would
improve the accuracy and availability of the relevant records and
statistics. This proposal involves modification to 29 CFR part 1904.41
to expand OSHA's legal authority to collect and make available injury
and illness information required under part 1904.
Statement of Need:
The collection of establishment specific injury and illness data in
electronic format on a timely basis is needed to help OSHA, employers,
employees, researchers, and the public more effectively prevent
workplace injuries and illnesses, as well as support President Obama's
Open Government Initiative to increase the ability of the public to
easily find, download, and use the resulting dataset generated and held
by the Federal Government.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary
of Labor to develop and maintain an effective program of collection,
compilation, and analysis of occupational safety and health statistics
(29 U.S.C. 673).
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:
Analysis of risks is still under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Stakeholder Meetings 05/25/10 75 FR 24505
Comment Period End 06/18/10
NPRM 09/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Keith Goddard
Director, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2400
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AC49
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
112. HAZARD COMMUNICATION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
[[Page 79605]]
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 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.
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. The 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. In
addition, the 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. 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 in compliance 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 03/02/10
Hearing 03/31/10
Post Hearing Comment
Period End 06/01/10
Final Action 08/00/11
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
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S
[[Page 79606]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Introduction: Department Overview and Summary of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of 10 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.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Department's regulatory priorities respond to the challenges and
opportunities we face. Our mission generally is as follows:
The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and
stability, and the security of the United States require the
development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the
lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives,
including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the
United States.
To help us achieve our mission, we have five strategic goals:
Safety: Improve public health and safety by reducing
transportation-related fatalities and injuries.
State of Good Repair: Ensure the U.S. proactively maintains
its critical transportation infrastructure in a state of
good repair.
Economic Competitiveness: Promote transportation policies and
investments that bring lasting and equitable economic
benefits to the Nation and its citizens.
Livable Communities: Foster livable communities through place-
based policies and investments that increase transportation
choices and access to transportation services.
Environmental Sustainability: Advance environmentally
sustainable policies and investments that reduce carbon and
other harmful emissions from transportation sources.
In identifying our regulatory priorities for the next year, the
Department considered its mission and goals and 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 the regulations
The advantages to non-regulatory alternatives
Opportunities for deregulatory action
The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on agency
resources
This regulatory plan identifies the Department's regulatory
priorities--the 17 pending rulemakings chosen from among the dozens of
significant rulemakings listed in the Department's broader regulatory
agenda that the Department believes will merit special attention in the
upcoming year. The rules included in the regulatory plan embody the
Department's focus on our strategic goals.
The regulatory plan reflects the Department's primary focus on safety--
a focus that extends across several modes of transportation. For
example:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will continue to
enhance the safety of our airways by its initiative to
revise rest requirements for commercial pilots.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has
initiated rulemakings to strengthen the requirements for
Electronic On-Board Recorders.
Both FMCSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are
working to improve safety by regulating the maximum amount
of time commercial drivers and conductors can operate their
vehicles.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will
continue its rulemaking to reduce death and injury
resulting from incidents involving vehicle drivers backing
over people.
FMCSA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) are focusing on important rulemaking
initiatives for address distracted driving from the use of
electronic devices.
We are taking actions to address other important issues. For example:
NHTSA is engaged in two major rulemakings to address fuel
economy standards for both light and heavy duty vehicles.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) is focused on
its second major aviation consumer rulemaking designed to
further safeguard the interests of consumers flying the
Nation's skies.
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 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 modal
initiatives and has its own regulatory responsibilities, such as
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 regulation
does not impose unreasonable mandates.
[[Page 79607]]
The Department stresses the importance of conducting high quality
rulemakings in a timely manner and reducing the number of old
rulemakings. To implement this, the Department has required the
following actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to
ensure effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) effective
tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4)
early briefings of interested officials, (5) regular training of staff,
and (6) adequate allocations of resources. The Department has achieved
significant success because of this effort. It allows 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 final rulemaking; the use of
regulatory negotiation; an expanded Internet page that provides
important regulatory information, including ``effects'' reports and
status reports (http://regs.dot.gov/); and the use of Internet blogs
and other Web 2.0 technology to increase and 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,
Executive Order 12866, and the Department's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. This includes determining whether the rules would be more
understandable if they were 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.
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 the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting
rulemaking. 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 other
rules that affect multiple 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 related analyses; and data quality,
including peer reviews.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) intergovernmental review of other
agencies' significant rulemaking documents and to Administration and
congressional proposals that concern the regulatory process. The
General Counsel's Office works closely with representatives of other
agencies, OMB, 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 2011, OST will continue to focus its efforts on
enhancing airline passenger protections by requiring carriers to adopt
various consumer service practices (2105-AD92).
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.
FAA Activities that may lead to rulemaking in fiscal year 2011 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 decisionmaking, and cabin safety. Some of
these projects may result in rulemaking and guidance
materials.
[[Page 79608]]
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, some of which are small businesses.
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.
In addition to the regulatory priorities specified below,
additional priorities will come from the Airline Safety and
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010,
signed by the President on August 1, 2010.
FAA top regulatory priorities for 2010 to 2011 include:
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 Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking would
include proposals to:
Reduce human error and improve performance among flight
crewmembers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers;
Enhance traditional training programs through the use of
flight simulation training devices for flight crewmembers;
and
Include additional training in areas critical to safety.
The Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter rulemaking would include
proposals to:
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 include proposals to:
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.
FHWA's top regulatory priority for the fiscal year is to address the
remaining congressionally directed rulemaking (Real-Time System
Management Information Program (2125-AF19)) resulting from the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 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. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety regulations based
on three core priorities: Raising the bar for entry, maintaining high
standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In addition to Agency-
directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations mandated by Congress,
such as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). FMCSA regulations
establish standards for motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and State
agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing
commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2011 includes completion of a number of
rulemakings 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) Drivers Of Commercial Vehicles: Restricting The Use Of
Cellular Phones (RIN 2126-AB29), (2) Hours of Service (RIN 2126-AB26),
(3) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), (4)
Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents (RIN 2126-AB20), and (5) National Registry of Certified
Medical Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97).
Together these priority rules could 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 Drivers of Commercial Vehicles:
Restricting the Use of Cellular Phones rulemaking (RIN 2126-AB29) would
place restrictions on mobile phone usage while operating a CMV.
A major undertaking by FMCSA, which began in FY 2010, was to initiate a
new rulemaking on Hours of Service (RIN 2126-AB26) as the result of a
settlement agreement reached on October 26, 2009. Under terms of the
settlement, FMCSA submitted a notice of proposed rulemaking to the
Office of Management and Budget within 9
[[Page 79609]]
months, and must issue a final rule within 21 months of the settlement.
In FY 2011, FMCSA will continue its work on the Comprehensive Safety
Analysis 2010 (CSA). The CSA initiative will improve the way FMCSA
identifies and conducts carrier compliance and enforcement operations
over the coming years. CSA's goal is to improve large truck and bus
safety by assessing a wider range of safety performance data from a
larger segment of the motor carrier industry through an array of
progressive compliance interventions. FMCSA anticipates that the
impacts of CSA and its associated rulemaking to put into place a new
safety fitness standard will enable the Agency to prohibit ``unfit''
carriers from operating on the Nation's highways (the Carrier Safety
Fitness Determination(RIN 2126-AB11)) and will contribute further to
the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and
injuries.
In FY 2011, FMCSA plans to issue a proposed rule on Electronic On-Board
Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents (RIN 2126-AB20) to
expand the number of carriers required to install and operate EOBRs and
clarify the supporting document requirements beyond the population
covered by the Agency's April 5, 2010, final rule.
Also in FY 2011, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the National
Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97) to establish
training and testing requirements for healthcare professionals who
issue medical certificates to CMV 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
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 issue of
occupant protection in rollover events and will issue a final rule
establishing performance standards to reduce complete and partial
ejections of vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions in
fiscal year 2011. NHTSA will continue to work towards a final rule to
require the installation of lap/shoulder belts in newly manufactured
motorcoaches in accordance with NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan and
DOT's 2009 Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action Plan. NHTSA also plans
to publish a final rule on Rearview Visibility in 2011; this action
will 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.
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 in conjunction with EPA a joint notice of
proposed rulemaking setting, for the first time, the corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) standards for both medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
NHTSA will also publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that would
propose CAFE standards for light trucks and passenger cars for model
years 2017 and beyond in fiscal year 2011.
In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance of
motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high
priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these
issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting
alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat
use; combat excessive speed and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle,
bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the
public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
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 statutory deadlines. 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 to their statutory
deadlines. Revised timelines for completion of unfinished regulations
will be forwarded to Congress for consideration.
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is working
to complete RSIA08 actions that include developing requirements for
train conductor certification, roadway worker protection, hours of
service for employees of intercity and commuter passenger rail service,
and training for railroad employees. Specifically, with regard to
passenger hours of service, FRA is developing a notice of proposed
rulemaking that would include proposals to establish hours of service
limitations for train employees of commuter and intercity passenger
railroads. The regulation will also address fatigue issues. RSAC-
supported actions that advance high-speed passenger rail include
proposed revisions to the Track Safety Standards dealing with vehicle-
track interaction. FRA is also initiating a rulemaking related to the
development of railroad risk reduction and system safety programs. This
activity will be a multi-year effort due to the underlying statutory
requirements that must be undertaken prior to the issuance of any final
rule.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FTA helps communities support public transportation by making grants of
Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit
facilities, and
[[Page 79610]]
planning and operation of transit and other transit-related purposes.
FTA regulatory activity focuses implementing the laws that apply to
recipients' uses of federal funding and the terms and conditions of FTA
grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
Provide maximum benefit to the mobility of the nation's
citizens and the connectivity of transportation
infrastructure;
Provide maximum local discretion;
Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation;
Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant
management process.
As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years, the
Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity. FTA's
regulatory priorities for the coming year will reflect the mandates of
the Agency's authorization statute, including, most notable, the Major
Capital Investments ``New Starts'' program and the State Safety
Oversight (SSO) program. The New Starts program is the main source of
discretionary Federal funding for construction of rapid rail, light
rail, commuter rail, and other forms of transit infrastructure. The SSO
program addressed the safety of rapid rail systems and other forms of
rail transit not otherwise regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration. FTA also anticipates amending its regulations governing
recipients' management of major capital projects and its Bus Testing
rule.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and
programs to promote and strengthen the U.S. merchant marine to meet the
economic and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's efforts
are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the domestic
and international trades and to expanding maritime opportunities for
American businesses and workers.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's
responsibility for ensuring the availability of a U.S. merchant marine
that can provide water transportation services for American shippers
and consumers and, in times of war or national emergency, for the U.S.
armed forces. Major program areas include: The Maritime Security
Program; the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program; the
National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force; the
Maritime Guaranteed Loan financing program; the United States Merchant
Marine Academy, and mariner education and training support programs;
the Deepwater Port Licensing program; and monitoring and enforcement of
U.S. cargo preference laws. In April 2010, the Secretary announced
MARAD's newest program, the ``America's Marine Highway Program.''
MARAD's primary regulatory activities in fiscal year 2011 will be to
assess existing cargo preference-related regulations, and to propose
updates or new regulations where appropriate.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal
pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward the elimination of deaths and
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by
all transportation modes, including pipeline. We will concentrate on
the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through the evaluation
of transportation incident data and findings of the National
Transportation Safety Board. 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. PHMSA will consider regulatory changes to
combat the dangers practice of distracted driving. In an effort to
understand and mitigate crashes associated with driver distraction, the
DOT has been studying the distracted driving issue with respect to both
behavioral and vehicle safety countermeasures. As part of the DOT's
overall strategy to this problem, PHMSA plans to address the practice
of text messaging (2137-AE63) and mobile phone (2137-AE65) use while
driving. PHMSA's rules would apply to commercial motor vehicle drivers
transporting a quantity of hazardous material requiring placarding
under part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity of a material listed as a
select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73.
PHMSA is also considering whether changes are needed to the regulations
covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. In particular, PHMSA is
considering whether it should extend regulation to certain pipelines
currently exempt from regulation; whether other areas along a pipeline
should either be identified for extra protection or be included as
additional high consequence areas (HCAs) for Integrity Management (IM)
protection; whether to establish and/or adopt standards and procedures
for minimum lead detection requirements for all pipelines; whether to
require the installation of emergency flow restricting devices (EFRDs)
in certain areas; whether revised valve spacing requirements are needed
on new construction or existing pipelines; whether repair timeframes
should be specified for pipeline segments in areas outside the HCAs
that are assessed as part of the IM; and whether to establish and/or
adopt standards and procedures for improving the methods of preventing,
detecting, assessing and remediating stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in
hazardous liquid pipeline systems.
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;