80 FR 77710 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 240 (December 15, 2015)
Page Range
77710-77914
FR Document
2015-30690
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735) and incorporated in Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821). The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual ``regulatory flexibility agendas'' describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at http://www.reginfo.gov and a reduced print version can be found in the Federal Register. Information regarding obtaining printed copies can also be found on the Reginfo.gov Web site (or below, VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?). The fall 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The complete fall 2015 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 30 Federal agencies and 59 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 77710-77914]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30690]
[[Page 77709]]
Vol. 80
Tuesday,
No. 240
December 15, 2015
Part II
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 /
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 77710]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions
AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.
ACTION: Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components
of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735) and
incorporated in Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821). The fall
editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans
required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and
provide additional detail about the most important significant
regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies
publish semiannual ``regulatory flexibility agendas'' describing
regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant
effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified
Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all
of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to
publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The
complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
http://www.reginfo.gov and a reduced print version can be found in the
Federal Register. Information regarding obtaining printed copies can
also be found on the Reginfo.gov Web site (or below, VI. How Can Users
Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?).
The fall 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The complete fall 2015 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans
of 30 Federal agencies and 59 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC
20405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about specific
regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each
entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this
publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory
Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. General Services Administration,
1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may
also send comments to us by email at: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
I. What are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
II. Why are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda
published?
III. How are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda
organized?
IV. What information appears for each entry?
V. Abbreviations.
VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?
Introduction to the Fall 2015 Regulatory Plan
AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS
Cabinet Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Other Executive Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Office of Personnel Management
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Trade Commission
National Indian Gaming Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
AGENCY REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY AGENDAS
Cabinet Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Other Executive Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Administration
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Independent Agencies
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
INTRODUCTION TO THE REGULATORY PLAN AND THE UNIFIED AGENDA OF FEDERAL
REGULATORY AND DEREGULATORY ACTIONS
I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities.
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative
statement of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory priorities, and,
for the most part, (2) a description of the most important significant
regulatory and deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects
to issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year.
This edition includes the regulatory plans of 30 agencies.
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the
[[Page 77711]]
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been
available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available
to the public at http://www.reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda
offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda
database to1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda
includes regulatory agendas from 61 Federal agencies. Agencies of the
United States Congress are not included.
The fall 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the
fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda
information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the
online Unified Agenda at http://www.reginfo.gov.
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed
regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that
appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies
are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration*
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Science Foundation
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Personnel Management*
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation*
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission*
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission*
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
National Council on Disability
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission*
National Labor Relations Board
National Transportation Safety Board
Surface Transportation Board
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified
Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for
overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and
information resource management activities, including implementation of
Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The
Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to
the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials,
and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that
will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may
choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12
months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or
withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not
require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign
affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization,
management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public
notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They
have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as
accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change.
Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development,
and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their
agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or
after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified
Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to
schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities
to those regulations that appear within it.
II. Why are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda published?
The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda helps agencies comply
with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various
Executive orders and other statutes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those
rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement
by including the information in their submissions for the Unified
Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are
reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' signed
August 13, 2002 (67 FR 53461), provides additional guidance on
compliance with the Act.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' signed
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), requires covered agencies to prepare
an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Order
also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory plan
of their ``most important significant regulatory actions,'' which
appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497,
signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to
Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and
Executive Order 13422.
Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' issued on January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which
includes the general principles of regulation and public participation,
and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies;
flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or
technological information and processes used to support the agencies'
regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' signed August 4, 1999 (64 FR
43255),
[[Page 77712]]
directs agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have ``federalism implications'' as defined in
the Order. Under the Order, an agency that is proposing a regulation
with federalism implications, which either preempt State law or impose
non-statutory unfunded substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments, must consult with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the regulation. In addition, the agency must
provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a
federalism summary impact statement for such a regulation, which
consists of a description of the extent of the agency's prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of their
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those concerns have
been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in their submissions
for the Unified Agenda information on whether their regulatory actions
may have an effect on the various levels of government and whether
those actions have federalism implications.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II)
requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and
benefits of significant regulatory actions ``that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more . . . in any 1 year .
. .'' The requirement does not apply to independent regulatory
agencies, nor does it apply to certain subject areas excluded by
section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda
those regulatory actions they believe are subject to title II of the
Act.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent
possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions
may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the
Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for ``those matters
identified as significant energy actions.'' As part of this effort,
agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified
Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L.
104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of
rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the
effective date of a ``major'' rule for at least 60 days from the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Act
specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely to
result, in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the
Administrator of OIRA will make the final determination as to whether a
rule is major.
III. How are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?
The Regulatory Plan appears in part II in a daily edition of the
Federal Register. The Plan is a single document beginning with an
introduction, followed by a table of contents, followed by each
agency's section of the Plan. Following the Plan in the Federal
Register, as separate parts, are the regulatory flexibility agendas for
each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities or rules that have been selected for periodic review under
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda
appears as a separate part. The sections of the Plan and the parts of
the Unified Agenda are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet
departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, a joint authority (Agenda only); and independent regulatory
agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into subagencies. Each
printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's
printed entries that follow. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains
a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed
agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed
entries that follow.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of
regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the
agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory
actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing
information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's
regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the
particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the
next step.
3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as
the next step.
4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
5. Completed Actions -- actions or reviews the agency has completed
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the
Agenda.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To
further differentiate these two
[[Page 77713]]
stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings,
Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active
rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking
listed above. A separate search function is provided on http://reginfo.gov to search for Completed and Long-Term Actions apart from
each other and active RINs.
A bullet () preceding the title of an entry indicates that
the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from
the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number
preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry
in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the
printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online
Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is
able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several
indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These
included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism
implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on
levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because
users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for
entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online
edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the Federal
Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have
the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.
IV. What information appears for each entry?
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data
elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
Title of the Regulation--a brief description of the subject of the
regulation. In the printed edition, the notation ``Section 610 Review''
following the title indicates that the agency has selected the rule for
its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated completions of
section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from completed
section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations appear in a
separate field.
Priority--an indication of the significance of the regulation.
Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of
significance.
(1) Economically Significant
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule is
similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule under 5
U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
(2) Other Significant
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered
Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency
anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that
are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be
included in the agency's regulatory plan.
(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither
Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/
Administrative/Other.
(4) Routine and Frequent
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring
application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations
and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
(5) Informational/Administrative/Other
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public
of the activity.
Major -- whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L.
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final
determination as to whether a rule is major.
Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s)
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to
laws in addition to these citations.
CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations
that will be affected by the action.
Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available,
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and
potential costs and benefits of the action.
Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/14 means the
agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but
not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate
what the next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does
not know what action it will take next.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--whether an analysis is
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.
Small Entities Affected--the types of small entities (businesses,
governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking
action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects
on small entities even though they believe that a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
Government Levels Affected--whether the action is expected to
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the
[[Page 77714]]
governments are State, local, tribal, or Federal.
International Impacts--whether the regulation is expected to have
international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of
interest to the Nation's international trading partners.
Federalism--whether the action has ``federalism implications'' as
defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this
information.
Included in the Regulatory Plan--whether the rulemaking was
included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall
2014.
Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD
for each agency contact.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
RIN Information URL--the Internet address of a site that provides
more information about the entry.
Public Comment URL--the Internet address of a site that will accept
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, http://www.regulations.gov.
Additional Information--any information an agency wishes to include
that does not have a specific corresponding data element.
Compliance Cost to the Public--the estimated gross compliance cost
of the action.
Affected Sectors--the industrial sectors that the action may most
affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
Energy Effects--an indication of whether the agency has prepared or
plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).
Related RINs--one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.
Statement of Need--a description of the need for the regulatory
action.
Summary of the Legal Basis--a description of the legal basis for
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by
statute or court order.
Alternatives--a description of the alternatives the agency has
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of
Executive Order 12866.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.
Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's
jurisdiction.
V. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation.
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the
Federal Register.
E.O.--An Executive order is a directive from the President to
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority.
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents,
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an agency
issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a
minimum:
A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public
rulemaking proceeding;
A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is
proposed; and
Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a
description of the subjects and issues involved.
Public Law (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress
and signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, Pub.
L. 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.
RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in
the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda, as directed by Executive
Order 12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB has asked agencies to
include RINs in the headings of their Rule and Proposed Rule documents
when publishing them in the Federal Register, to make it easier for the
public and agency officials to track the publication history of
regulatory actions throughout their development.
Seq. No.--The sequence number identifies the location of an entry
in the printed edition of the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda.
Note that a specific regulatory action will have the same RIN
throughout its development but will generally have different sequence
numbers if it appears in
[[Page 77715]]
different printed editions of the Unified Agenda. Sequence numbers are
not used in the online Unified Agenda.
U.S.C.--The United States Code is a consolidation and codification
of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The U.S.C. is
divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal
law.
VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?
Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed edition
of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory
flexibility agendas) are available from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800
(toll-free).
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly
from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please
contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are
available in electronic form at http://reginfo.gov, along with flexible
search tools.
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies
of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Federal Register. These documents are available at http://www.fdsys.gov.
Dated: November 16, 2015.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
[[Page 77716]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE 2015 REGULATORY PLAN
Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the production of a
Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563,
issued in 2011, reaffirms the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Consistent with these Executive Orders, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is providing the 2015 Unified Regulatory
Agenda (Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for public review. The
Agenda and Plan are preliminary statements of regulatory and
deregulatory policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda
and Plan include ``active rulemakings'' that agencies could possibly
conclude over the next year.
The Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that
agencies are considering for issuance in proposed or final form during
the 2016 fiscal year. In contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive list,
including numerous ministerial actions and routine rulemakings, as well
as long-term initiatives that agencies do not plan to complete in the
coming year but on which they are actively working.
A central purpose of the Agenda is to involve the public, including
State, local, and tribal officials, in Federal regulatory planning. The
public examination of the Agenda and Plan will facilitate public
participation in a regulatory system that, in the words of Executive
Order 13563, protects ``public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.'' We emphasize that rules listed on
the Agenda must still undergo significant development and review before
they are issued. No regulatory action can become effective until it has
gone through the legally required processes, which generally include
public notice and comment. Any proposed or final action must also
satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes, Executive Orders, and
Presidential Memoranda. Those requirements, public comments, and new
information may or may not lead an agency to go forward with an action
that is currently under contemplation. Among other information, the
Agenda also provides an initial classification of whether a rulemaking
is ``significant'' or ``economically significant'' under the terms of
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Whether a regulation is listed on the
Agenda as ``economically significant'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866 (generally, having an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more) can depend on several factors: Regulations may count
as economically significant because they impose costs, confer large
benefits, or remove significant burdens.
Executive Orders 13563 and 13610: Regulatory Development, and the
Retrospective Review of Regulation
Executive Order 13563 reaffirmed the principles, structures, and
definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed
regulatory review. Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need
for predictability and certainty in the regulatory system, as well as
for use of the least burdensome means to achieving regulatory ends.
These Executive Orders include the requirement that, to the extent
permitted by law, agencies should not proceed with rulemaking in the
absence of a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the
costs. They also establish public participation, integration and
innovation, flexible approaches, scientific integrity, and
retrospective review as areas of emphasis in regulation. In particular,
Executive Order 13563 explicitly draws attention to the need to measure
and improve ``the actual results of regulatory requirements''--a clear
reference to the importance of the retrospective review of regulations.
Executive Order 13563 addresses new regulations that are under
development, as well as retrospective review of existing regulations
that are already in place. With respect to agencies' review of existing
regulations, the Executive Order calls for careful reassessment based
on empirical analysis. The prospective analysis required by Executive
Order 13563 may depend on a degree of prediction and speculation about
a rule's likely impacts, and the actual costs and benefits of a
regulation may be lower or higher than what was anticipated when the
rule was originally developed.
Executive Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,
issued in 2012, institutionalizes the retrospective--or ``lookback''--
mechanism set out in Executive Order 13563 by requiring agencies to
report to the Office of Management and Budget and to the public twice
each year (January and July) on the status of their retrospective
review efforts. In these reports, agencies are to ``describe progress,
anticipated accomplishments, and proposed timelines for relevant
actions.''
Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 recognize that circumstances may
change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory
requirements. Lookback analysis allows agencies to reevaluate existing
rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those regulations that do
not make sense in their current form. The agencies' lookback efforts so
far during this Administration have yielded approximately $22 billion
in savings for the American public over the next five years.
The Administration is continuing to work with agencies to
institutionalize retrospective review so that agencies regularly review
existing rules on the books to ensure they remain effective, cost-
justified, and based on the best available science. The Administration
will continue to examine what is working and what is not, and eliminate
unjustified and outdated regulations.
Regulatory lookback is an ongoing exercise, and continues to be a
high priority for the Administration. In accordance with Executive
Orders 13610 and 13563, in July 2015, agencies submitted to OIRA the
latest updates of their retrospective review plans, which are publicly
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/regulation-reform.
Federal agencies will again update their retrospective review plans in
January 2016. OIRA has asked agencies to continue to emphasize
regulatory lookbacks in their latest Regulatory Plans.
Reflecting that focus, the current Agenda lists approximately
seventy-five rules under active development that are characterized as
retroactively reviewing existing programs. Below are some examples of
agency plans to reevaluate current practices in accordance with
Executive Orders 13563 and 13610:
--After extensive public engagement and in response to a recent court
decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events rule. These revisions will
streamline the process that states follow to decide whether air quality
monitoring data associated with an ``exceptional event'' should be
included when determining if an area is meeting national air quality
standards. Exceptional events include natural events such as wildfires,
stratospheric ozone intrusions, and volcanic and seismic activities.
Given the possible influence of wildfires on ozone, EPA is also
releasing draft guidance that provides states with additional
information on preparing exceptional events demonstrations for
wildfires as they relate to the ozone standards.
--The Department of Labor (DOL) has taken steps to include
retrospective analysis requirements in new
[[Page 77717]]
regulations in order to facilitate evaluation of their impacts. For
example, DOL's Mine Safety and Health Administration announced in its
2014 Respirable Dust final rule that it will conduct a retrospective
review in 2017 to evaluate the data collected using continuous personal
dust monitors. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements final rule--
moving from the Standard Industrial Classification System to the North
American Industry Classification System for determining which
industries are low-hazard and potentially exempt from recordkeeping
requirements--includes a commitment to conduct a retrospective review
of the agency's recordkeeping regulations. Finally, in DOL's Wage and
Hour Division's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to modernize the
Fair Labor Standards Act's Overtime Exemptions for Executive,
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, the
Division proposed to consider a future retrospective review of the rule
after it is finalized and implemented.
--The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is working on a
final rule to streamline, in several ways, the inspection and home
warranty requirements for the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA)
single family mortgage insurance. In doing so, FHA would increase
choice and lower the costs for FHA borrowers. First, HUD is considering
the removal of regulations that require the use of an inspector from
the FHA Inspector Roster as a condition for FHA mortgage insurance.
This change is based on the recognition of the sufficiency and quality
of inspections carried out by local jurisdictions. Second, this rule
would also remove the regulations requiring homeowners to purchase 10-
year protection plans from FHA-approved warranty issuers to qualify for
high loan-to-value FHA-insured mortgages. This change is based on the
increased quality of construction materials and the standardization of
building codes and building code enforcement. HUD expects the rule to
increase flexibility for homeowners and reduce the regulatory burden on
lenders.
Executive Order 13609: International Regulatory Cooperation
In addition to using regulatory lookback as a tool to make the
regulatory system more efficient, the Administration has focused on
promoting international regulatory cooperation. International
regulatory cooperation supports economic growth, job creation,
innovation, trade and investment, while also protecting public health,
safety, and welfare. In May 2012, President Obama issued Executive
Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, which
emphasizes the importance of these efforts as a key tool for
eliminating unnecessary differences in regulation between the United
States and its major trading partners. Additionally, as part of the
regulatory lookback initiative, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies
to ``consider reforms to existing significant regulations that address
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United
States and its major trading partners . . . when stakeholders provide
adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences
are unnecessary.''
Executive Order 13609 also directed each agency to submit a
Regulatory Plan that includes ``a summary of its international
regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to
lead to significant regulations.'' Further, Executive Order 13609
requires each agency to ``ensure that significant regulations that the
agency identifies as having significant international impacts are
designated as such'' in the Regulatory Agenda.
In furtherance of this focus on international regulatory
cooperation, in the summer of 2014, the United States and Canada
released the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint
Forward Plan.\1\ The Forward Plan identifies twenty-four areas of
cooperation where the United States and Canada will work together over
the next three to five years in order to modernize our thinking around
international regulatory cooperation and develop a toolbox of
strategies to address international regulatory issues as they arise.
Building on the Forward Plan, in the Spring of 2015, agencies in the
United States and Canada issued joint work plans to guide focused
international regulatory cooperation efforts. The Forward Plan and
related work represent a significant turning point in the
Administration's regulatory cooperation relationship with Canada, and
outline new Federal agency-level partnership arrangements to help
institutionalize the ways in which our regulators work together. The
Forward Plan will help remove unnecessary requirements, develop common
standards, and identify potential areas where future regulation may
unnecessarily differ. This kind of international cooperation on
regulations between the United States and Canada will help eliminate
barriers to doing business in the United States or with U.S. companies,
grow the economy, and create jobs. The Administration also continues to
work with other countries, including Mexico and Brazil, to identify
opportunities for regulatory cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-joint-forward-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
The Administration continues to foster a regulatory system that
emphasizes the careful consideration of costs and benefits, public
participation, integration, regulatory innovation, flexible regulatory
approaches, and science. These considerations are meant to produce a
regulatory system that draws on recent learning, that is driven by
evidence, and that is suited to the distinctive circumstances of the
21st Century.
Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. Payment Limitation and 0560-AI31 Final Rule Stage.
Payment Eligibility--
Actively Engaged in
Farming.
2............................. Importation, Interstate 0579-AE15 Prerule Stage.
Movement, and Release
Into the Environment of
Certain Genetically
Engineered Organisms.
3............................. General Administrative 0563-AC43 Final Rule Stage.
Regulations;
Catastrophic Risk
Protection Endorsement;
Area Risk Protection
Insurance Regulations;
and the Common Crop
Insurance Regulations,
Basic Provisions.
[[Page 77718]]
4............................. Enhancing Retailer 0584-AE27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Eligibility Standards in
SNAP.
5............................. Supplemental Nutrition 0584-AE45 Proposed Rule Stage.
Assistance Program
(SNAP) Photo Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT)
Card Implementation
Requirements.
6............................. National School Lunch and 0584-AE09 Final Rule Stage.
School Breakfast
Programs: Nutrition
Standards for All Foods
Sold in School, as
Required by the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010.
7............................. Child and Adult Care Food 0584-AE18 Final Rule Stage.
Program: Meal Pattern
Revisions Related to the
Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010.
8............................. Requirements for the 0583-AD54 Final Rule Stage.
Disposition of Non-
Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Calves.
9............................. USDA Local and Regional 0551-AA87 Final Rule Stage.
Food Aid Procurement
Program.
10............................ Program Measures and 0570-AA95 Final Rule Stage.
Metrics.
11............................ Rural Broadband Access 0572-AC34 Final Rule Stage.
Loans and Loan
Guarantees.
12............................ Agricultural Conservation 0578-AA61 Final Rule Stage.
Easement Program.
13............................ Environmental Quality 0578-AA62 Final Rule Stage.
Incentives Program
(EQIP).
14............................ Conservation Stewardship 0578-AA63 Final Rule Stage.
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AJ40 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Response (SAPR)
Program.
16............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage.
and Response Program
Procedures.
17............................ Transition Assistance 0790-AJ17 Final Rule Stage.
Program (TAP) for
Military Personnel.
18............................ Department of Defense 0790-AJ29 Final Rule Stage.
(DoD)-Defense Industrial
Base (DIB) Cybersecurity
(CS) Activities.
19............................ Detection and Avoidance 0750-AI58 Proposed Rule Stage.
of Counterfeit
Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation
(DFARS Case 2014-D005).
20............................ Network Penetration 0750-AI61 Final Rule Stage.
Reporting and
Contracting for Cloud
Services (DFARS Case
2013-D018).
21............................ TRICARE: Mental Health 0720-AB65 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Substance Use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22............................ REPAYE................... 1840-AD18 Final Rule Stage.
23............................ Workforce Innovation and 1830-AA21 Final Rule Stage.
Opportunity Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24............................ Coverage Determination 1904-AD04 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Computers and
Battery Backup Systems.
25............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for General
Service Lamps.
26............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Residential Non-
Weatherized Gas Furnaces.
27............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD34 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Commercial
Water Heating Equipment.
28............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD37 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Central
Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps.
29............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AC54 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Commercial
and Industrial Pumps.
30............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AC95 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Small,
Large, and Very Large
Commercial Package A/C
and Heating Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31............................ Increase Number of 0930-AA22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Patients to which Drug
Addiction Treatment Act
(DATA)-Waived Physicians
Can Prescribe
Buprenorphine.
32............................ Food Labeling: Revision 0910-AF22 Final Rule Stage.
of the Nutrition and
Supplement Facts Labels.
33............................ Food Labeling: Serving 0910-AF23 Final Rule Stage.
Sizes of Foods That Can
Reasonably Be Consumed
At One Eating Occasion;
Dual-Column Labeling;
Updating, Modifying, and
Establishing Certain
RACCs.
34............................ Standards for the 0910-AG35 Final Rule Stage.
Growing, Harvesting,
Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human
Consumption.
[[Page 77719]]
35............................ ``Tobacco Products'' 0910-AG38 Final Rule Stage.
Subject to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, as Amended by the
Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act.
36............................ Reports of Distribution 0910-AG45 Final Rule Stage.
and Sales Information
for Antimicrobial Active
Ingredients Used in Food-
Producing Animals.
37............................ Focused Mitigation 0910-AG63 Final Rule Stage.
Strategies To Protect
Food Against Intentional
Adulteration.
38............................ Foreign Supplier 0910-AG64 Final Rule Stage.
Verification Program.
39............................ Accreditation of Third- 0910-AG66 Final Rule Stage.
Party Auditors/
Certification Bodies to
Conduct Food Safety
Audits and to Issue
Certifications.
40............................ Supplemental Applications 0910-AG94 Final Rule Stage.
Proposing Labeling
Changes for Approved
Drugs and Biological
Products.
41............................ Sanitary Transportation 0910-AG98 Final Rule Stage.
of Human and Animal Food.
42............................ Programs of All-Inclusive 0938-AR60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Care for the Elderly
(PACE) Update (CMS-4168-
P).
43............................ Expansion of the CMS 0938-AS66 Proposed Rule Stage.
Qualified Entity Program
(CMS-5061-P).
44............................ Merit-Based Incentive 0938-AS69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Payment System (MIPS)
and Alternative Payment
Models (APMs) in
Medicare Fee-for-Service
(CMS-5517-P).
45............................ Hospital Inpatient 0938-AS77 Proposed Rule Stage.
Prospective Payment
System for Acute Care
Hospitals and the Long-
Term Care Hospital
Prospective Payment
System and FY 2017 Rates
(CMS-1655-P).
46............................ CY 2017 Revisions to 0938-AS81 Proposed Rule Stage.
Payment Policies Under
the Physician Fee
Schedule and Other
Revisions to Medicare
Part B (CMS-1654-P).
47............................ CY 2017 Hospital 0938-AS82 Proposed Rule Stage.
Outpatient PPS Policy
Changes and Payment
Rates and Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment
System Policy Changes
and Payment Rates (CMS-
1656-P).
48............................ Medicaid Managed Care, 0938-AS25 Final Rule Stage.
CHIP Delivered in
Managed Care, Medicaid
and CHIP Comprehensive
Quality Strategies, and
Revisions related to
Third Party Liability
(CMS-2390-F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49............................ Chemical Facility Anti- 1601-AA69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Terrorism Standards
(CFATS).
50............................ Adjustment of Status to 1615-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Lawful Permanent
Resident for Aliens in T
and U Nonimmigrant
Status.
51............................ New Classification for 1615-AA67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Victims of Criminal
Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant
Status.
52............................ Exception to the 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Persecution Bar for
Asylum, Refugee, and
Temporary Protected
Status, and Withholding
of Removal.
53............................ Requirements for Filing 1615-AB98 Proposed Rule Stage.
Motions and
Administrative Appeals.
54............................ Significant Public 1615-AC04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Benefit Parole for
Entrepreneurs.
55............................ Retention of EB-1, EB-2, 1615-AC05 Proposed Rule Stage.
and EB-3 Immigrant
Workers and Program
Improvements Affecting
Highly-Skilled H-1B
Alien Workers.
56............................ Classification for 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Severe Forms
of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for
T Nonimmigrant Status.
57............................ Application of 1615-AB77 Final Rule Stage.
Immigration Regulations
to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana
Islands.
58............................ Special Immigrant 1615-AB81 Final Rule Stage.
Juvenile Petitions.
59............................ Enhancing Opportunities 1615-AC00 Final Rule Stage.
for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
Nonimmigrants and EB-1
Immigrants.
60............................ Expansion of Provisional 1615-AC03 Final Rule Stage.
Unlawful Presence
Waivers of
Inadmissibility.
61............................ Inspection of Towing 1625-AB06 Final Rule Stage.
Vessels.
62............................ Transportation Worker 1625-AB21 Final Rule Stage.
Identification
Credential (TWIC); Card
Reader Requirements.
63............................ Air Cargo Advance 1651-AB04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Screening (ACAS).
64............................ Definition of Form I-94 1651-AA96 Final Rule Stage.
to Include Electronic
Format.
65............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Mode Employees.
66............................ Passenger Screening Using 1652-AA67 Final Rule Stage.
Advanced Imaging
Technology.
67............................ Improving and Expanding 1653-AA72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Training Opportunities
for F-1 Nonimmigrant
Students with STEM
Degrees and Expanding
Cap-Gap Relief for All F-
1 Students With Pending
H-1B Petitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68............................ Narrowing the Digital 2501-AD75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Divide through Broadband
Installation in HUD-
Funded New Construction
and Substantial
Rehabilitation (FR-5890).
[[Page 77720]]
69............................ Narrowing the Digital 2506-AC41 Proposed Rule Stage.
Divide Through Community
Planning: Integrating
Broadband Planning Into
HUD's Consolidated
Planning Process (FR-
5891).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973).
71............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability:
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of State and Local
Governments.
72............................ Revision of Standards and 1190-AA71 Proposed Rule Stage.
Procedures for the
Enforcement of Section
274B of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
73............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA59 Final Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Title II and Title III
of the ADA).
74............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA63 Final Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability;
Movie Captioning and
Audio Description.
75............................ Motions To Reopen 1125-AA68 Proposed Rule Stage.
Removal, Deportation, or
Exclusion Proceedings
Based Upon a Claim of
Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel.
76............................ Recognition of 1125-AA72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Organizations and
Accreditation of Non-
Attorney Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77............................ Establishing Paid Sick 1235-AA13 Proposed Rule Stage.
Leave for Contractors,
Executive Order 13706.
78............................ Defining and Delimiting 1235-AA11 Final Rule Stage.
the Exemptions for
Executive,
Administrative,
Professional, Outside
Sales, and Computer
Employees.
79............................ Workforce Innovation and 1205-AB73 Proposed Rule Stage.
Opportunity Act.
80............................ Savings Arrangements 1210-AB71 Proposed Rule Stage.
Established by States
for Non-Governmental
Employees.
81............................ Respirable Crystalline 1219-AB36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Silica.
82............................ Proximity Detection 1219-AB78 Proposed Rule Stage.
Systems for Mobile
Machines in Underground
Mines.
83............................ Criteria and Procedures 1219-AB72 Final Rule Stage.
for Proposed Assessment
of Civil Penalties.
84............................ Occupational Exposure to 1218-AB70 Final Rule Stage.
Crystalline Silica.
85............................ Improve Tracking of 1218-AC49 Final Rule Stage.
Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86............................ Use of Mobile Wireless 2105-AE30 Proposed Rule Stage.
Devices for Voice Calls
on Aircraft.
87............................ Airport Safety Management 2120-AJ38 Proposed Rule Stage.
System.
88............................ Pilot Professional 2120-AJ87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Development.
89............................ Revision of Airworthiness 2120-AK65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Normal,
Utility, Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category
Airplanes.
90............................ Operation and 2120-AJ60 Final Rule Stage.
Certification of Small
Unmanned Aircraft
Systems.
91............................ National Goals and 2125-AF54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
92............................ National Goals and 2125-AF49 Final Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
93............................ National Goals and 2125-AF53 Final Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
94............................ Carrier Safety Fitness 2126-AB11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Determination.
95............................ Entry-Level Driver 2126-AB66 Proposed Rule Stage.
Training.
96............................ Commercial Driver's 2126-AB18 Final Rule Stage.
License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (MAP-21).
97............................ Rear Seat Belt Reminder 2127-AL37 Proposed Rule Stage.
System.
98............................ Fuel Efficiency Standards 2127-AL52 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles and Work
Trucks: Phase 2.
99............................ Transit Asset Management. 2132-AB07 Proposed Rule Stage.
100........................... Public Transportation 2132-AB23 Proposed Rule Stage.
Agency Safety Plans.
101........................... Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE66 Proposed Rule Stage.
of On-Shore Liquid
Hazardous Pipelines.
102........................... Pipeline Safety: Gas 2137-AE72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Transmission.
103........................... Hazardous Materials: Oil 2137-AF08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Spill Response Plans and
Information Sharing for
High-Hazard Flammable
Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 77721]]
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104........................... Interstate Transport Rule 2060-AS05 Proposed Rule Stage.
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
105........................... Oil and Natural Gas 2060-AS30 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sector: Emission
Standards for New and
Modified Sources.
106........................... Model Trading Rules for 2060-AS47 Proposed Rule Stage.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Electric Utility
Generating Units
Constructed on or Before
January 8, 2014.
107........................... Proposed Renewable Fuel 2060-AS72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Volume Standards for
2017 and Biomass Based
Diesel Volume (BBD) for
2018.
108........................... Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2070-AJ38 Proposed Rule Stage.
(PCBs); Reassessment of
Use Authorizations.
109........................... Trichloroethylene (TCE); 2070-AK03 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
110........................... N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) 2070-AK07 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Methylene Chloride;
Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
111........................... Financial Responsibility 2050-AG61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements Under
CERCLA Section 108(b)
for Classes of
Facilities in the Hard
Rock Mining Industry.
112........................... User Fee Schedule for 2050-AG80 Proposed Rule Stage.
Electronic Hazardous
Waste Manifest.
113........................... Modernization of the 2050-AG82 Proposed Rule Stage.
Accidental Release
Prevention Regulations
Under Clean Air Act.
114........................... Review of the National 2060-AQ44 Final Rule Stage.
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Lead.
115........................... Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2060-AS16 Final Rule Stage.
and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles--Phase 2.
116........................... Renewable Fuel Volume 2060-AS22 Final Rule Stage.
Standards, 2014-2016
(Reg Plan).
117........................... Findings That Greenhouse 2060-AS31 Final Rule Stage.
Gas Emissions From
Aircraft Cause Or
Contribute To Air
Pollution That May
Reasonably Be
Anticipated to Endanger
Public Health And
Welfare Under CAA
Section 231 (Reg Plan).
118........................... Pesticides; Certification 2070-AJ20 Final Rule Stage.
of Pesticide Applicators.
119........................... Formaldehyde Emission 2070-AJ44 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Composite
Wood Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120........................... The Federal Sector's 3046-AA94 Proposed Rule Stage.
Obligation To Be a Model
Employer of Individuals
With Disabilities.
121........................... Federal Sector Equal 3046-AB00 Proposed Rule Stage.
Employment Opportunity
Process.
122........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB02 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Genetic
Information
Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
123........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB01 Final Rule Stage.
Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124........................... Small Business Innovation 3245-AG64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Research Program and
Small Business
Technology Transfer
Program Policy Directive.
125........................... Small Business Investment 3245-AG66 Proposed Rule Stage.
Company (SBIC) Program;
Impact SBICs.
126........................... Affiliation for Business 3245-AG73 Proposed Rule Stage.
Loan Programs and Surety
Bond Guarantee Program.
127........................... Small Business Mentor- 3245-AG24 Final Rule Stage.
Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
Programs.
128........................... Small Business Government 3245-AG58 Final Rule Stage.
Contracting and National
Defense Authorization
Act of 2013 Amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129........................... Vocational Factors of 0960-AH74 Prerule Stage.
Age, Education, and Work
Experience in the Adult
Disability Determination
Process.
130........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG38 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Musculoskeletal
Disorders (3318P).
131........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG65 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Digestive
Disorders (3441P).
132........................... Acceptable Medical 0960-AH51 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sources, Evaluating
Evidence, and Treating
Sources (3787P).
133........................... Returning Evidence at the 0960-AH64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Appeals Council Level
(3844F).
134........................... Removal of the Expiration 0960-AH70 Proposed Rule Stage.
Date for State
Disability Examiner
Authority to Make Fully
Favorable Quick
Disability
Determinations and
Compassionate Allowances.
135........................... Anti-Harassment and 0960-AH82 Proposed Rule Stage.
Hostile Work Environment
Case Tracking and
Records System Revised.
[[Page 77722]]
136........................... Amendment to the 0960-AH86 Proposed Rule Stage.
Education Category,
``Illiterate or Unable
to Communicate in
English'' and
Clarification of
Previous Work Experience
Criterion for Persons
who are ``Illiterate''.
137........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF35 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Neurological Impairments
(806F).
138........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF58 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Respiratory System
Disorders (859F).
139........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF69 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Mental
Disorders (886F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides leadership on
food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and
related issues based on sound public policy, the best available
science, and efficient management. The Department touches the lives of
almost every American, every day. Our regulatory plan reflects that
reality and reinforces our commitment to achieve results for everyone
we serve.
The regulatory plan continues USDA efforts to implement several
important pieces of legislation. The 2014 Farm Bill provides
authorization for services and programs that impact every American and
millions of people around the world. The new Farm Bill builds on
historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years,
while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings
for taxpayers. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) allows
USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, opportunity to make real
reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the
critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children.
To assist the country in addressing today's challenges, USDA has
developed a regulatory plan consistent with five strategic goals that
articulate the Department's priorities.
1. Assist Rural Communities To Create Prosperity So They Are Self-
Sustaining, Re-Populating, and Economically Thriving
Rural America is home to a vibrant economy supported by nearly 50
million Americans. These Americans come from diverse backgrounds and
work in a variety of industries, including manufacturing, agriculture,
services, government, and trade. Today, the country looks to rural
America not only to provide food and fiber, but for crucial emerging
economic opportunities such as renewable energy, broadband, and
recreation. Many of the Nation's small businesses are located in rural
communities and are the engine of job growth and an important source of
innovation for the country. The economic vitality and quality of life
in rural America depends on a healthy agricultural production system.
Farmers and ranchers face a challenging global, technologically
advanced, and competitive business environment. USDA works to ensure
that producers are prosperous and competitive, have access to new
markets, can manage their risks, and receive support in times of
economic distress or weather-related disasters. Prosperous rural
communities are those with adequate assets to fully support the well-
being of community members. USDA helps to strengthen rural assets by
building physical, human and social, financial, and natural capital.
Enhance rural prosperity, including leveraging capital markets to
increase Government's investment in rural America.
USDA is committed to providing broadband to rural areas. Since
2009, USDA investments have delivered broadband service to 1.5 million
households, businesses, schools, libraries and community facilities.
These investments support the USDA goal to create thriving communities
where people want to live and raise families. Consistent with these
efforts, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published an interim rule on
July 30, 2015, implementing Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan
Guarantee Program provisions included in section 6104 of the 2014 Farm
Bill. The rule established two funding cycles to review and prioritize
applications for the program. It also set a minimum level of acceptable
broadband service at 4 megabits downstream and 1 megabit upstream. RUS
is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the
administration of the Broadband program based on public comments
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0572-AC34.
USDA also works to increase the effectiveness of the Government's
investment in rural America. To this end, Rural Development will issue
a final rule to establish program metrics to measure the economic
activities created through grants and loans, including any technical
assistance provided as a component of the grant or loan program, and to
measure the short and long-term viability of award recipients, and any
entities to whom recipients provide assistance using the awarded funds.
The action is required by section 6209 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and will
not change the underlying provisions of the included programs, such as
eligibility, applications, scoring, and servicing provisions. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0570-AA95.
Increase agricultural opportunities by ensuring a robust safety
net, creating new markets, and supporting a competitive agricultural
system.
In another step to increase the effectiveness of the Government's
investment in rural America, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) published a
proposed rule on March 26, 2015, on behalf of the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) to specify the requirements for a person to be
considered actively engaged in farming for the purpose of payment
eligibility for certain FSA and CCC programs. These changes will ensure
that farm program payments are going to the farmers and farm families
that they are intended to help. Specifically, FSA is revising and
clarifying the requirements for a significant contribution of active
personnel management to a farming operation. These changes are required
by the 2014 Farm Bill, and will not apply to persons or entities
comprised solely of family members. FSA is currently developing a final
rule to implement changes to the rule based on public comments
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI31.
The Federal Crop Insurance Program mitigates production and revenue
losses from yield or price fluctuations and
[[Page 77723]]
provides timely indemnity payments. The 2014 Farm Bill improved the
Federal Crop Insurance Program by allowing producers to elect coverage
for shallow losses, improved options for growers of organic
commodities, and the ability for diversified operations to insure their
whole-farm under a single policy. To strengthen further the farm
financial safety net, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) published an
interim rule on June 30, 2014, that amended the general administrative
regulations governing Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, Area
Risk Protection Insurance, and the basic provisions for Common Crop
Insurance consistent with the changes mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.
RMA is currently developing a final rule to implement changes based on
public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0563-AC43.
2. Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands Are Conserved,
Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing
Our Water Resources
National forests and private working lands provide clean air, clean
and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. These lands sustain jobs and
produce food, fiber, timber, and bio-based energy. Many of our
landscapes are scenic and culturally important and provide Americans a
chance to enjoy the outdoors. The 2014 Farm Bill delivered a strong
conservation title that made robust investments to conserve and support
America's working lands, and consolidated, and streamlined programs to
improve efficiency and encourage participation. Farm Bill conservation
programs provide America's farmers, ranchers and others with technical
and financial assistance to enable conservation of natural resources,
while protecting and improving agricultural operations. Seventy percent
of the American landscape is privately owned, making private lands
conservation critical to the health of our nation's environment and
ability to ensure our working lands are productive. To sustain these
many benefits, USDA has implemented the authorities provided by the
2014 Farm Bill to protect and enhance 1.3 billion acres of working
lands. USDA also manages 193 million acres of national forests and
grasslands. Our partners include Federal, Tribal, and State
governments; industry; non-governmental organizations, community groups
and producers. The Nation's lands face increasing threats that must be
addressed. USDA's natural resource-focused regulatory strategies are
designed to make substantial contributions in the areas of soil health,
resiliency to climate change, and improved water quality.
Improve the health of the Nation's forests, grasslands and working
lands by managing our natural resources.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which provides
financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands
and wetlands and their related benefits. The 2014 Farm Bill
consolidated the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP) into ACEP. In fiscal year 2014, an estimated 143,833 acres of
farmland, grasslands, and wetlands were enrolled into ACEP. Through
regulation, NRCS established a comprehensive framework to implement
ACEP, and standardized criteria for implementing the program, provided
program participants with predictability when they initiate an
application and convey an easement. On February 27, 2015, NRCS
published an interim rule to implement ACEP. NRCS is currently
developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of
ACEP based on public comments received. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0578-AA61.
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) also helps the
Department ensure that our national forests and private working lands
are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change.
Through CSP, NRCS provides financial and technical assistance to
eligible producers to conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and
related natural resources on their land. NRCS makes funding for CSP
available nationwide on a continuous application basis. In fiscal year
2014, NRCS enrolled about 9.6 million acres and now CSP enrollment
exceeds 60 million acres, about the size of Iowa and Indiana combined.
On November 5, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule to implement
provisions of the 2014 Farm bill that amended CSP. Key changes
included: Limiting eligible land to that in production for at least 4
of the 6 years preceding February 7, 2014, the date of enactment of the
2014 Farm Bill; requiring contract offers to meet stewardship threshold
for at least two priority resource concerns and meet or exceed one
additional priority resource concern by the end of the stewardship
contract; allowing enrollment of lands that are protected by an
agricultural land easement under the newly authorized ACEP; and
allowing enrollment of lands that are in the last year of the
Conservation Reserve Program. NRCS is currently developing a final rule
to implement changes to the administration of CSP based on public
comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-
AA63.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is another
voluntary conservation program that helps agricultural producers in a
manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality
as compatible goals. Through EQIP, agricultural producers receive
financial and technical assistance to implement structural and
management conservation practices that optimize environmental benefits
on working agricultural land. Through EQIP, producers addressed their
conservation needs on over 11 million acres in fiscal year 2014. EQIP
has been instrumental in helping communities respond to drought. On
December 12, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule that implemented
changes mandated by 2014 Farm Bill and addressed a few key
discretionary provisions, including, adding waiver authority to
irrigation history requirements, incorporation of Tribal Conservation
Advisory Councils where appropriate, and clarifying provisions related
to Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) associated with
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO). NRCS is currently developing a final
rule to implement changes to the administration of EQIP based on public
comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-
AA62.
Contribute to clean and abundant water by protecting and enhancing
water resources on national forests and working lands.
The 2014 Farm Bill relinked highly erodible land conservation and
wetland conservation compliance with eligibility for premium support
paid under the federal crop insurance program. The Farm Service Agency
implemented these provisions through an interim rule published on
April, 24, 2015. Since publication of the interim rule, more than 98.2
percent of producers met the requirement to certify conservation
compliance to qualify for crop insurance premium support payments.
Implementing these provisions for conservation compliance is expected
to extend conservation provisions for an additional 1.5 million acres
of highly erodible lands and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which will
reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife
habitat. Through this action, NRCS modified the existing
[[Page 77724]]
wetlands Mitigation Banking Program to remove the requirement that USDA
hold easements in the mitigation program. This allows entities
recognized by USDA to hold mitigation banking easements granted by a
person who wishes to maintain payment eligibility under the wetland
conservation provision. FSA is currently developing a final rule to
implement changes to the interim rule based on public comments
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI26.
3. Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology
Exports as America Works To Increase Food Security
Food security is important for sustainable economic growth of
developing nations and the long-term economic prosperity and security
of the United States. Unfortunately, global food insecurity is expected
to rise in the next five years. Food security means having a reliable
source of nutritious and safe food and sufficient resources to purchase
it. USDA has a role in curbing this distressing trend through programs
such as Food for Progress and President Obama's Feed the Future
Initiative and through new technology-based solutions, such as the
development of genetically engineered plants, that improves yields and
reduces post-harvest loss.
Ensure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global
food security.
The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) will issue a final rule for
the Local and Regional procurement (LRP) Program as authorized in
section 3207 of the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA implemented a successful LRP
pilot program under the authorities of the 2008 Farm Bill. LRP ties to
the President's 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and works with developing
nations to alleviate poverty and foster economic growth to provide
better markets for U.S. exporters. LRP is expected to help alleviate
hunger for millions of individuals in food insecure countries. LRP
supports development activities that strengthen the capacity of food-
insecure developing countries, and build resilience and address the
causes of chronic food insecurity while also supporting USDA's other
food assistance programs, including the McGovern Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole). In
addition, the program can be used to fill food availability gaps
generated by unexpected emergencies. LRP complements ongoing activities
under the McGovern-Dole Program, improves dietary diversity and
nutrition, and supports the sustainability of school-feeding programs
as they transition to full host-government ownership. The final rule
will enable FAS and its partners to strengthen the capacity of host-
governments to implement their own homegrown school feeding programs.
For more information about this rule, see RIN 0551-AA87.
Enhance America's ability to develop and trade agricultural
products derived from new and emerging technologies.
USDA uses science-based regulatory systems to allow for the safe
development, use, and trade of products derived from new agricultural
technologies. USDA continues to regulate the importation, interstate
movement, and field-testing of newly developed genetically engineered
(GE) organisms that qualify as ``regulated articles'' to ensure they do
not pose a threat to plant health before they can be commercialized.
These science-based evaluations facilitate the safe introduction of new
agricultural production options and enhance public and international
confidence in these products. As a part of this effort, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will publish a proposed rule to
revise its regulations and align them with current authorizations by
incorporating the noxious weed authority and regulate GE organisms that
pose plant pest or weed risks in a manner that balances oversight and
risk, and that is based on the best available science. The regulatory
framework being developed will enable more focused, risk-based
regulation of GE organisms that pose plant pest or noxious weed risks
and will implement regulatory requirements only to the extent necessary
to achieve the APHIS protection goal. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0579-AE15.
4. 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. Science has established strong links between diet, health,
and productivity. Even small improvements in the average diet, fostered
by USDA, may yield significant health and economic benefits. However,
foodborne illness is still a common, costly--yet largely preventable--
public health problem, even though the U.S. food supply system is one
of the safest in the world. USDA is committed to ensuring that
Americans have access to safe food through a farm-to-table approach to
reduce and prevent foodborne illness. To help ensure a plentiful supply
of food, the Department detects and quickly responds to new invasive
species and emerging agricultural and public health situations.
Improve access to nutritious food.
USDA's domestic nutrition assistance programs serve one in four
Americans annually. The Department is committed to making benefits
available to every eligible person who wishes to participate in the
major nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the cornerstone of the nutrition
assistance safety net, which helped over 46 million Americans--more
than half of whom were children, the elderly, or individuals with
disabilities--put food on the table in 2014. The Department will soon
propose changes to eligibility requirements for SNAP retail food stores
to ensure access to nutrition foods for home preparation and
consumption for the families most vulnerable to food insecurity. While
the ultimate objective is for economic opportunities to make nutrition
assistance unnecessary for as many families as possible, we will ensure
that these vital programs remain ready to serve all eligible people who
need them.
The Department is also committed to helping ensure children have
access to healthy, balanced meals throughout the day, as mandated by
HHFKA, through the USDA child nutrition programs, including school,
child care and summer meal programs. The summer meal programs have seen
a historic increase in participation, with 11 million more meals served
in 2015 compared to the previous summer, serving a total of more than
187 million meals at over 50,000 summer meal sites throughout the
country.
Promote healthy diet and physical activity behaviors.
The Administration has set a goal to solve the problem of childhood
obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach
adulthood at a healthy weight. On school days, children who participate
in both the breakfast and lunch programs consume as many as half of
their calories at school. The Department must ensure that all foods
served in school contribute to good health, and the HHFKA provided new
authority to set common-sense nutrition standards for food sold
throughout the school day. To help accomplish this goal, the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) will publish three rules implementing
provisions of the HHFKA.
[[Page 77725]]
FNS published an interim rule on June 28, 2013, for Nutrition
Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as required by HHFKA. Section
208 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish
science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools,
outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any time
during the school day. FNS is currently developing a final rule to
implement changes to the interim rule based on public comments
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE09.
FNS published the proposed rule, Meal Pattern Revisions Related to
the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, on January 15, 2015, to
implement section 221 of the HHFKA. This section requires USDA to
review and update, no less frequently than once every 10 years,
requirements for meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP) to ensure that meals are consistent with the most
recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and relevant nutrition science.
FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the
proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE18.
FNS published the proposed rule, Local School Wellness Policy
Implementation and School Nutrition Environment Information, on
February 28, 2014, to implement section 204 of the HHFKA. As a result
of meal pattern changes in the school meals programs, students are now
eating 16 percent more vegetables and there was a 23 percent increase
in the selection of fruit at lunch. This Act requires each local
educational agency participating in Federal child nutrition programs to
establish, for all schools under its jurisdiction, a local school
wellness policy to maintain this momentum. The HHFKA requires that the
wellness policy include goals for nutrition, nutrition education,
physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote
student wellness. In addition, the HHFKA requires that local
educational agencies ensure stakeholder participation in development of
local school wellness policies; periodically assess compliance with the
policies; and disclose information about the policies to the public.
FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the
proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE25.
Protect agricultural health by minimizing major diseases and pests
to ensure access to safe, plentiful, and nutritious food.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continue to enforce
and improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS
published a proposed rule on May 13, 2015, that would require non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter to be
condemned and promptly euthanized. Currently, FSIS allows veal calves
that are unable to rise from a recumbent position to be set aside and
warmed or rested, and presented for slaughter if they regain the
ability to walk. FSIS has found that this practice may contribute to
the inhumane treatment of the veal calves. This rule will improve
compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act by encouraging
improved treatment of veal calves, as well as improve inspection
efficiency by allowing FSIS inspection program personnel to devote more
time to activities related to food safety. FSIS is currently developing
a final rule to implement these changes based on public comments
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD54.
5. Create a USDA for the 21st Century That Is High Performing,
Efficient, and Adaptable
USDA has been a leader in the Federal government at implementing
innovative practices to rein in costs and increase efficiencies. By
taking steps to find efficiencies and cut costs, USDA employees have
achieved savings and cost avoidances of over $1.4 billion in recent
years. Some of these results came from relatively smaller, common-sense
initiatives such as the $1 million saved by streamlining the mail
handling at one of the USDA mailrooms or the consolidation of the
Department's cell phone contracts, which is saving taxpayers over $5
million per year. Other results have come from larger-scale activities,
such as the focus on reducing non-essential travel that has yielded
over $400 million in efficiencies. Overall, these results have allowed
us to do more with less during a time when such stewardship of
resources has been critical to meeting the needs of those that we
serve.
While these proactive steps have given USDA the tools to carry out
our mission-critical work, ensuring that USDA's millions of customers
receive stronger service, they are matters relating to agency
management, personnel, public property, and/or contracts, and as such
they are not subject to the notice and comment requirements for
rulemaking codified at 5 U.S.C. 553. Consequently, they are not
included in the Department's regulatory agenda. For more information
about the USDA efforts to cut costs and modernize operations via the
Blueprint for Stronger Service Initiative, see http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=blueprint_for_stronger_service.html.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review,'' and Executive Order 13610, ``Identifying and
Reducing Regulatory Burdens,'' USDA continues to review its existing
regulations and information collections to evaluate the continued
effectiveness in addressing the circumstances for which the regulations
were implemented. As part of this ongoing review to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of its regulatory programs, USDA will publish a Federal
Register notice inviting public comment to assist in analyzing its
existing significant regulations to determine whether any should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.
USDA has identified the following regulatory actions as associated
with retrospective review and analysis. Some of the regulatory actions
on the below list are completed actions, which do not appear in the
Regulatory Agenda. You can find more information about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda (search the
Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Other entries on this
list are still in development and have not yet appeared in the
Regulatory Agenda. You can read more about these entries and the
Department's strategy for regulation reform at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_OPEN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Title RIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Plant Health & Inspection Service Participation in the TBD.
(APHIS). International Trade Data System
(ITDS) via the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE).
Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS).. Electronic Export Application and 0583-AD41.
Certification Fee.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)..... Input Export Form Numbers into TBD.
the Automated Export System.
[[Page 77726]]
AMS...................................... Revisions to the Electronic 0581-AD40.
Submission of the Import Request
of Shell Eggs.
APHIS.................................... Forms for Declaration Mandated by 0579-AD99.
2008 Farm Bill (Lacey Act
amendments).
Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk Acreage and Crop Reporting 0563-0084.
Management Agency. Streamlining Initiative.
FSA...................................... Environmental Policies and 0560-AH02.
Procedures; Compliance with the
National Environmental Policy
Act and Related Authorities.
Natural Resources Conservation Service... Conservation Delivery TBD.
Streamlining Initiative (CDSI)--
Conservation Client Gateway
(CCG).
Rural Business Services (RBS)............ Business and Industry Loan 0570-AA85.
Guaranteed Program.
Rural Housing Service.................... Community Facilities Loan and 0575-AC91.
Grants.
FSIS..................................... Electronic Import Inspection and 0583-AD39.
Certification of Imported
Products and Foreign
Establishments.
Forest Service (FS)...................... National Environmental Policy Act 0596-AD01.
Efficiencies.
FSA...................................... Streamlined Farm Loan Programs 0560-0237.
Direct Loan Making.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)......... Direct Certification for School 0584-AE10.
Meals.
FSIS..................................... Prior Labeling Approval System: 0583-AC59.
Generic Label Approval.
FSIS..................................... Modernization of Poultry 0583-AD32.
Slaughter Inspection.
FNS...................................... Simplified Cost Accounting and 0584-AD84.
Other Actions to Reduce
Paperwork in the Summer Food
Service Program.
Rural Business Services (RBS)............ Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, 0570-AA73,
and Biobased Product 0570-0065.
Manufacturing Assistance.
RBS...................................... Rural Energy for America Program. 0570-AA76.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA--FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)
Final Rule Stage
1. Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility--Actively Engaged in
Farming
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1308-1 note
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1400.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is revising regulations on
behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to specify the
requirements for a person to be considered actively engaged in farming
for the purpose of payment eligibility for certain FSA and CCC
programs. Specifically, FSA is revising and clarifying the requirements
for a significant contribution of active personnel management to a
farming operation. These changes are required by the Agricultural Act
of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). The provisions of the rule will not apply
to persons or entities comprised solely of family members. The rule
will not change the existing regulations as they relate to
contributions of land, capital, equipment, labor, or the special rules
related to landowners with a risk in the crop or spouses.
Statement of Need: This rule is needed to update the FSA
regulations to implement a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79).
Alternatives: There are alternatives about how many managers a
farming operation may be able to have qualify for payments based on
being actively engaged in farming.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost-benefit analysis was prepared
for this rule and will be made available when the rule is published.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/26/15 80 FR 15916
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/26/15
Final Action........................ 12/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group,
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0560-AI31
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Prerule Stage
2. Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 340.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: USDA uses science-based regulatory systems to allow for
the safe development, use, and trade of products derived from new
agricultural technologies. USDA continues to regulate the importation,
interstate movement, and field-testing of newly developed genetically
engineered (GE) organisms that qualify as regulated articles'' to
ensure they do not pose a threat to plant health before they can be
commercialized. These science-based evaluations facilitate the safe
introduction of new agricultural production options and enhance public
and international confidence in these products. As a part of this
effort, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will
publish a proposed rule to revise its regulations and align them with
current authorizations by incorporating the noxious weed authority and
regulate GE organisms that pose plant pest or weed risks in a manner
that balances oversight and risk, and that is based on the best
available science. The regulatory framework being developed will enable
more focused, risk-based regulation of GE organisms that pose plant
pest or noxious weed risks and will implement regulatory requirements
only to the extent necessary to achieve the APHIS protection goal.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Prepare an 11/00/15
Environmental Impact Statement.
NPRM................................ 07/00/16
[[Page 77727]]
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
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: Andrea Huberty, Branch Chief, Policy, Program, and
Regulatory Consultation Branch, Policy Coordination Program, BRS,
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-
3880.
RIN: 0579-AE15
USDA--FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (FCIC)
Final Rule Stage
3. General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk Protection
Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common
Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 400; 7 CFR 457.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 30, 2014, 2015 Contract
year.
Abstract: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends the General
Administrative Regulations--Ineligibility for Programs under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act, the Catastrophic Risk Protection
Endorsement, the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations, and the
Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions, to revise those
revisions affected by changes mandated by the Agricultural Act of 2014
(commonly referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill), enacted on February 7,
2014.
Statement of Need: This Final rule is needed complete the Interim
Final Rule that updates FCIC regulations required to implement
provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A benefit-cost analysis was prepared
for the Interim Final Rule and no significant changes have been made to
this Final Rule which would alter the initial analysis which will be
made available when the rule is published.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 06/30/14 79 FR 37155
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 09/02/14
End.
Final Action........................ 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Timothy Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration
and Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133, Phone:
816 926-7387.
RIN: 0563-AC43
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Proposed Rule Stage
4. Enhancing Retailer Eligibility Standards in SNAP
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 3 U.S.C. 2012; 9 U.S.C. 2018
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 278.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will address the criteria used to
authorize redemption of SNAP benefits (especially by restaurant-type
operations).
Statement of Need: The 2014 Farm Bill amended the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the requirement that certain SNAP
authorized retail food stores have available on a continual basis at
least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories
to a mandatory minimum of seven. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the
Act to increase for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores the
minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required
from two to three. This rule would codify these mandatory requirements.
Further, using existing authority in the Act and feedback from an
expansive Request for Information, the rulemaking also proposes changes
to address depth of stock, redefine staple and accessory foods, and
amend the definition of retail food store to clarify when a retailer is
a restaurant rather than a retail food store.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (the Act) generally (with limited exception) (1) requires that
food purchased with SNAP benefits be meant for home consumption and (2)
forbids the purchase of hot foods with SNAP benefits. The intent of
those statutory requirements can be circumvented by selling cold foods,
which may be purchased with SNAP benefits, and offering onsite heating
or cooking of those same foods, either for free or at an additional
cost. In addition, section 9 of the Act provides for approval of retail
food stores and wholesale food concerns based on their ability to
effectuate the purposes of the Program.
Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development,
alternatives are not yet articulated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes will allow FNS
to improve access to healthy food choices for SNAP participants and to
ensure that participating retailers effectuate the purposes of the
Program. FNS anticipates that these provisions will have no significant
costs to States.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE27
USDA--FNS
5. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Photo Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card Implementation Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub L. 104-193
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 274; 7 CFR 278.
[[Page 77728]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Under section 7(h)(9) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (the Act), as amended [7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(9)], States have the
option to require that SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card
contain a photo of one or more household members. This rule would
incorporate into regulation and provide additional clarity on the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) guidance developed for State agencies
wishing to implement the photo EBT card option.
Statement of Need: The regulation would create a clearer structure
for those States wishing to exercise the option of placing a photo on
EBT cards and ensure uniform accessibility for participants in all
States.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires
that any States choosing to issue a photo on the EBT card establish
procedures to ensure that all other household members or any authorized
representative of the household may utilize the card. Furthermore,
applying this option must also preserve client rights and
responsibilities afforded by the Act to ensure that all household
members are able to maintain uninterrupted access to benefits, that
non-applicants applying on behalf of eligible household members are not
negatively impacted, and that SNAP recipients using photo EBT cards are
treated equitably in accordance with Federal law when purchasing food
at authorized retailers.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes to be proposed are not
expected to create serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with
actions taken or planned by another agency or materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. The requirements
will not raise novel or legal policy issues.
Budgetary impact on FNS is expected to be limited. Photo EBT card
implementation in multiple States may require additional Federal staff
for review and approval of implementation plans and for on-going
monitoring via management evaluations.
As a result of this rule, States that exercise the option to
implement photos on EBT cards would incur costs associated with
development of an implementation plan, State staff training, client
training, and retailer training. It is expected that providing guidance
or oversight of these requirements would fall under the standard
purview of these agencies and could be absorbed by existing staff.
State Agencies are responsible for approximately 50% of SNAP
administration costs, which would include the costs associated with
implementing and maintaining photo EBT cards.
Risks: FNS recognizes the existence of violating retailers and
others buying and using multiple cards and pins to stock their shelves
and will propose an alternative to address possession of multiple cards
and PINs to allow for additional verification at point-of-sale in some
specific instances.
Recent attempts to implement photographs on the EBT card have
proven difficult for some States. This rule will expand on current
program regulations to provide clarification and more detailed guidance
to States implementing the photo EBT option and ensure program access
is protected.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE45
USDA--FNS
Final Rule Stage
6. National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: Nutrition
Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as Required by the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal
governments and the private sector.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule codifies the two provisions of the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210
and 220. Section 203 requires schools participating in the National
School Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place
where meals are served during meal service. Section 208 requires the
Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish science-based
nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools. The nutrition
standards apply to all food sold outside the school meal programs, on
the school campus, and at any time during the school day.
Statement of Need: This rule codifies the two provisions of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR
parts 210 and 220. Section 203 requires schools participating in the
National School Lunch Program to make available to children free of
charge, as nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in
the place where meals are served during meal service. Section 208
requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed regulations to establish
science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools not
later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition standards apply to all food
sold outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any
time during the school day.
Summary of Legal Basis: There is no existing regulatory requirement
to make water available where meals are served. Regulations at 7 CFR
parts 210.11 direct State agencies and school food authorities to
establish regulations necessary to control the sale of foods in
competition with lunches served under the NSLP, and prohibit the sale
of foods of minimal nutritional value in the food service areas during
the lunch periods. The sale of other competitive foods may, at the
discretion of the State agency and school food authority, be allowed in
the food service area during the lunch period only if all income from
the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school
food service or the school or student organizations approved by the
school. State agencies and school food authorities may impose
additional restrictions on the sale of and income from all foods sold
at any time throughout schools participating in the Program.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and
Budgetary Effects Statement: The Congressional Budget Office has
determined that these provisions would incur no Federal costs.
Although the complexity of factors that influence overall food
consumption and obesity prevent us from defining a level of dietary
change or disease or cost reduction that is attributable to the rule,
there is evidence that standards like those in the rule will positively
influence and perhaps directly improve
[[Page 77729]]
food choices and consumption patterns that contribute to students'
long-term health and well-being, and reduce their risk for obesity.
Any rule-induced benefit of healthier eating by school children
would be accompanied by costs, at least in the short term. Healthier
food may be more expensive than unhealthy food either in raw materials,
preparation, or both and this greater expense would be distributed
among students, schools, and the food industry.
Risks: None known.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/08/13 78 FR 9530
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/09/13 .......................
Interim Final Rule.................. 06/28/13 78 FR 39067
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/27/13 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 10/28/13 .......................
End.
Final Action........................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE09
USDA--FNS
7. Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related to
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule will implement section 221 of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act). It
requires USDA to review and update, no less frequently than once every
10 years, requirements for meals served under the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) to ensure those meals are consistent with the most
recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and relevant nutrition science.
Statement of Need: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act) requires USDA to review and update,
no less frequently than once every 10 years, requirements for meals
served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) to ensure
those meals are consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
Americans and relevant nutrition science. The Act also clarifies the
purpose of the program, restricts the use of food as a punishment or
reward, outlines requirements for milk and milk substitution, and
introduces requirements for the availability of water. This rule
establishes the criteria and procedures for implementing these
provisions of the Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
Alternatives: There are several instances throughout the proposed
rule and its associated Regulatory Impact Analysis that offered
alternatives for review and comment to the various criteria and
procedures discussed.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will improve the
nutritional quality of meals served and the overall health of children
participating in the CACFP. Most CACFP meals are served to children
from low-income households. As described in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, the baseline is the current cost of food to CACFP providers.
The rule more closely aligns the meals served in CACFP with the Dietary
Guidelines in an essentially cost-neutral manner. USDA estimates that
the rule will result in a very small decrease in the cost for CACFP
providers to prepare and serve meals to program participants, and may
result in a small, temporary increase in labor and administrative costs
to implement the rule. Therefore, it is projected that no meaningful
net change in cost will occur as a result of this rule.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/15/15 80 FR 2037
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/15/15 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 04/27/15 80 FR 23243
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 05/27/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE18
USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)
Final Rule Stage
8. Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Calves
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.)
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 309.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is developing
final regulations to amend the ante-mortem inspection regulations to
remove a provision that permits establishments to set apart and hold
for treatment veal calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent
position and walk because they are tired or cold (9 CFR 309.13(b)). The
regulations permit such calves to proceed to slaughter if they are able
to rise and walk after being warmed or rested. FSIS proposed to require
that non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) veal calves that are offered for
slaughter be condemned and promptly euthanized. The existing
regulations require that NAD mature cattle be condemned on ante-mortem
inspection and that they be promptly euthanized (9 CFR 309.3(e)). FSIS
believes that prohibiting the slaughter of all NAD veal calves would
improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978
(HMSA), and the humane slaughter implementing regulations. It also
would improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS inspection program personnel
[[Page 77730]]
(IPP) spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
Statement of Need: Removing the provision from 9 CFR 309.13(b)
would eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be done with veal calves
that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or
because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the appropriate
disposition of these animals. In addition, removing the provision in 9
CFR 309.13(b) would improve inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the treatment of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 603(a) and (b).
Alternatives: The Agency considered two alternatives to the
proposed amendment: The status quo and prohibiting the slaughter of
non-ambulatory disabled ``bob veal,'' which are calves generally less
than one week old.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If the rule is adopted, non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves will not be re-inspected during ante-
mortem inspection. The veal calves that are condemned during ante-
mortem inspection will be euthanized. The estimated annual cost to the
veal industry would range between $2,368 and $161,405. The expected
benefits of this proposed rule are not quantifiable. However, the rule
would ensure the humane disposition of the non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves. It also would increase the efficiency and effective
implementation of inspection and humane handling requirements at
official establishments.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/13/15 80 FR 27269
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/12/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 349-E
JWB, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-2025,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD54
USDA--FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (FAS)
Final Rule Stage
9. USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Section 3207 of the Agriculture Act of 2014
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FAS is issuing a final rule with comment for the USDA
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (USDA LRP Program),
authorized in section 3207 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The USDA
LRP Program funds may be used to support development activities that
strengthen the capacity of food-insecure developing countries, and
build resilience and address the causes of chronic food insecurity and
support USDA's other food assistance programs, especially the McGovern
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
(McGovern-Dole). In addition, funds may be used to fill food
availability gaps generated by unexpected emergencies. USDA LRP Program
funding used to complement ongoing activities under the McGovern-Dole
Program will improve dietary diversity and nutrition, and support the
graduation and sustainability of school-feeding programs as they
transition to full host-government ownership. LRP funding will enable
FAS and its partners to build the capacity of host-governments to
implement their own homegrown school feeding programs. A final rule is
needed for FAS to begin implementing the program in FY 2016 and will
establish awardee obligations regarding financial management and
performance standards specifying applicable Departmental regulations
and incorporating statutory requirements. The promulgation of a rule to
administer the USDA LRP program will require the assignment of a new
CFR number.
Statement of Need: It is necessary for Local and Regional Food Aid
Procurement Program (LRP) regulations to be put in place before
solicitations for application to the LRP program can be made for
FY2016. The changes to Section 3207 in the 2014 Farm Bill require USDA
to issue new regulations in order to enact the local and regional
procurement provisions. The regulations will clarify: Program intent;
application process; agreements process; payments; transport;
recordkeeping and reporting; monitoring and evaluation; and
noncompliance issues. The LRP regulations will be aligned with
regulations for existing USDA food assistance programs, including Food
for Progress Program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 1726c and Sections 3207 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is anticipated that adopting a
local and regional procurement program will bring about several
benefits identified under the local and regional pilot project.
Primarily, USDA LRP Program will result in cost savings in transport,
shipping, and handling; better match between recipients needs and
program commodity availability; and time savings between the
procurement and delivery of food, which is especially important in
emergency situations; and providing a means to strengthen or build
local supply chains.
In addition, recipients under the LRP Pilot generally prefer
locally and regionally sourced food over food sourced from other areas
making it more suitable for food preparation and more accepted by
school-aged children. This acceptability and availability would also
impact the small scale producers who would experience an increase in
demand and help them achieve economies of scale.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule With Comments............ 02/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: International Impacts: This regulatory
action will be likely to have international trade and development
effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Connie Ehrhart, Management Analyst, Department of
Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 690-1578, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0551-AA87
[[Page 77731]]
USDA--RURAL BUSINESS--COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)
Final Rule Stage
10. Program Measures and Metrics
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79, sec 6209
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4284, subpart J; 7 CFR 4280, subparts A and D;
7 CFR 4284, subparts E and F; 7 CFR 4279, subparts A and B; 7 CFR 4287,
subpart B; 7 CFR 4274, subpart D; 7 CFR 1942, subpart A; 7 CFR 3575,
subpart A; 7 CFR 3570, subpart B.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Agency is proposing to publish an Interim Rule with
request for comments that will codify certain program measures and
metrics for included Agency programs and establish the process by which
the Agency will collect the data. Section 6209 of the Agricultural Act
of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 113-79) requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to collect data regarding economic activities created
through grants and loans, including any technical assistance provided
as a component of the grant or loan program, and measure the short- and
long-term viability of award recipients and any entities to whom those
recipients provide assistance using award funds. The proposed action
will not change the underlying provisions of the included programs
(e.g., eligibility, applications, scoring, and servicing provisions).
Statement of Need: This interim rule implements section 6209,
Program Measures and Metrics, under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014
Farm Bill). The proposed action will codify the measures and metrics
identified in section 6209(c)(2)(B) through (D) for each included
program and establish the process by which the Agency will collect the
data. The proposed action will not change the underlying provisions of
the included programs (e.g., eligibility, applications, scoring, and
servicing provisions).
To implement section 6209, the Agency plans to publish a single
rule that will modify each of the included programs accordingly. While
the specific provisions may vary from program to program, the rule
will, at minimum, specify for each program:
The performance measures required to be collected by the
statute (i.e., percentage of increase of employees, number of business
starts and clients served, and any benefits such as an increase in
revenue or customer base) and other measures in addition to these as
determined by the Agency,
Who is responsible for providing those metrics, and the
time frame over which the metrics will be collected (this could vary
depending on whether a grant or a loan/guaranteed loan is awarded).
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: MaryPat Dasal, Department of Agriculture, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-7853, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0570-AA95
USDA--RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS)
Final Rule Stage
11. Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1738.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending regulations
for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program to
implement section 6104 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill),
which made changes the Agency must adopt prior to accepting
applications for future loans. RUS published this regulation as an
interim rule, which took effect upon publication in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2015. The rulemaking will allow the Agency to
begin accepting applications once again.
In addition, the Agency is seeking comments regarding this interim
rule to guide its efforts in drafting the final rule for the Broadband
Loan Program. The Comment Date ends September 28, 2015.
Statement of Need: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending
regulations for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee
program to implement section 6104 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014
Farm Bill) which made changes the Agency must adopt prior to accepting
applications for future loans. RUS published this regulation as an
interim rule, which took effect upon publication in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2015. The rulemaking will allow the Agency to
begin accepting applications once again.
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. The 2002 Farm Bill amended the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 to include title VI, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and
Loan Guarantee Program (Broadband Loan Program), to be administered by
the Agency. Title VI 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. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, the Agency was directed to
promulgate regulations without public comment. Implementing the program
required a different lending approach for the Agency than it employed
in its earlier telephone program because of the unregulated, highly
competitive, and technologically diverse nature of the broadband
market. Those regulations were published on January 30, 2003, at 68 FR
4684.
In an attempt to enhance the Broadband Loan Program and to
acknowledge growing criticism of funding competitive areas, the Agency
proposed to amend the program's regulations on May 11, 2007, at 72 FR
26742. As the Agency began analysis of the public comments it received
on the proposed regulations, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (2008 Farm Bill) was working its way through Congress. On March
14, 2011, the Agency published an interim rule implementing the
requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill and started accepting applications.
The Agency did not receive any significant comments to the interim rule
and published a final rule on February 6, 2013. With the enactment of
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) section 6104, Public Law
113-79 (Feb. 7, 2014), additional requirements were added to the
Broadband Loan Program, including the prioritization of approving
applications, a minimum benchmark of broadband service, a more
transparent public notice requirement, and the first statutorily
required reporting standards, all of which are implemented in the rule.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Bringing broadband services to rural
areas does present some challenges.
[[Page 77732]]
Because rural systems must contend with lower household density than
urban systems, the cost to deploy fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and 4G LTE
systems in urban communities is considerably lower on a per household
basis, making urban systems more economical to construct. Depending
upon the technology deployed it can cost three times more, on average,
to provide service to rural customers than to customers located in
urban areas. Other associated rural issues, such as environmental
challenges or providing wireless service through mountainous areas,
also can add to the cost of deployment.
Areas with low population size, locations that have experienced
persistent population loss and an aging population, or places where
population is widely dispersed over demanding terrain generally have
difficulty attracting broadband service providers. These
characteristics can make the fixed cost of providing broadband access
too high, or limit potential demand, thus depressing the profitability
of providing service. Clusters of lower service exist in sparsely
populated areas, such as the Dakotas, eastern Montana, northern
Minnesota, and eastern Oregon. Other low-service areas, such as the
Missouri-Iowa border and Appalachia, have aging and declining numbers
of residents. Nonetheless, rural areas in some States (such as
Nebraska, Kansas, and Vermont) have higher-than expected broadband
service, given their population characteristics, suggesting that
policy, economic, and social factors can overcome common barriers to
broadband expansion.
Most employment growth in the U.S. over the last several decades
has been in the service sector, a sector especially conducive for
broadband applications. Broadband allows rural areas to compete for
low- and high-end service jobs, from call centers to software
development. Rural businesses have been adopting more e-commerce and
Internet practices, improving efficiency and expanding market reach.
Some rural retailers use the Internet to satisfy supplier requirements.
The farm sector, a pioneer in rural Internet use, is increasingly
comprised of farm businesses that purchase inputs and make sales
online. Farm household characteristics such as age, education, presence
of children, and household income are significant factors in adopting
broadband Internet use, whereas distance from urban centers is not a
factor. Larger farm businesses are more apt to use broadband in
managing their operation; the more multifaceted the farm business, the
more the farm used the Internet.
The 2015 subsidy rate is 18.69 percent. The available FY 2015
budget authority for this program is $4.5 million, which will provide a
program level of $24.077 million in outlays at the current subsidy
rate. Since the Interim Regulation for the Broadband Program was
published in March of 2011, 27 applications have been received for an
average of 7 loan applications per year. The applications range in size
and may cover requests for funding for many communities. All of the
pre-loan data collected by the applicant is generally submitted to RUS
at the same time. The annual burden for preparation and submission per
respondent for the pre-loan data is estimated to be 400 hours per
response, response to the public notice filing requirement is 1.5 hours
per response, and the preparation of loan documents is estimated at 24
hours per response.
The Agency estimates the cost to respondents will be at $108,325.
The overall hours spent per application and cost to respondents did not
change from the former regulation. The projected change in the overall
cost to the government is minimal compared with the former projections,
only $366. The burden of review breaks out into the following fashion:
It is projected that there will be one more hour for the engineering
analysis and financial analysis per application. The initial financial
review and initial engineering review stay the same as it is under the
previous regulation, as does the loan closing attorney and clerical
assistance. Finally, it is estimated that the Loan Closing-Analyst time
per application will increase by a half hour.
Risks: Without access to advanced telecommunications networks,
rural areas suffer from declining educational opportunities, inadequate
health care, depressed economies, and high unemployment. In contrast,
access to broadband can play a vital role in offsetting the obstacles
of distances and isolation that have traditionally stifled rural
progress and living standards. With broadband infrastructure in place
high volumes of data can be shared easily across distances great and
small. This technology is not a luxury service but rather a lifeline to
modern everyday transactions. Without this basic utility rural
residents do not and will not have adequate medical or educational
services; rural businesses unable to thrive; and local governments
disorganized and unconnected. Broadband accessibility is as fundamental
for the future viability of rural communities today as was the
telephone in the 20th century, and as railroads and highways were more
than a century ago.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 07/30/15 80 FR 45397
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 07/30/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 09/28/15
End.
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AC34
USDA--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
Final Rule Stage
12. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1468.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, November 4, 2014, 270 days from
enactment of Pub. L. 113-79.
Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) consolidated
the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) into a single
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The consolidated
easement program has two components: An agricultural land easement
component and a wetland reserve easement component. The agricultural
land easement component is patterned after the former FRPP with GRP's
land eligibility components merged into it. The wetland reserve
easement component is patterned after WRP. Land previously enrolled in
the three contributing programs is considered enrolled in the new ACEP.
Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act)
consolidated several of the Title XII (of the Food Security Act of
1985) conservation easement programs and provided for the continued
operations of former
[[Page 77733]]
programs. NRCS promulgated a consolidated conservation easement
regulation to reflect the 2014 Act's consolidation of the WRP, FRPP,
and GRP programs. This action is needed to respond to comments
received.
Summary of Legal Basis: NRCS published an interim rule to implement
the consolidated conservation easement program. This regulation action
is pursuant to section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended by the 2014 Act, which requires regulations necessary to
implement title II of the 2014 Act through an interim rule with request
for comments.
Alternatives: NRCS determined that rulemaking was the appropriate
mechanism through which to implement the 2014 Act consolidation of the
three source conservation easement programs. Additionally, NRCS
determined that the Agency needs standard criteria for implementing the
program and program participants need predictability when initiating an
application and conveying an easement. The regulation aims to establish
a comprehensive framework for working with program participants to
implement ACEP. Upon consideration of public comment, NRCS will
promulgate final program regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 2014 Act has consolidated three
conservation easement programs into a single conservation easement
program with two components. The program will be implemented under the
general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who is a Vice
President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Through ACEP, NRCS
will continue to purchase wetland reserve easements directly and will
contribute funds to eligible entities for their purchase of
agricultural land easements that protect working farm and grazing
lands. Participation in the program is voluntary.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the
following:
Provides an opportunity for public comment in program
regulations.
Provides a regulatory framework for NRCS to implement a
consolidated conservation easement program.
Provides transparency to the public potential applicants
on NRCS program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are the following:
The costs incurred by private landowners are negative or
zero, since this is a voluntary program, and they are compensated for
the rights that they transfer.
Other costs incurred by society through market changes are
localized or negligible.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 02/27/15 80 FR 11032
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/28/15
End.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/30/15 80 FR 24191
Reopened.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 05/28/15
Reopened End.
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0578-AA61
USDA--NRCS
13. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3839AA--3839-8
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1466.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, November 4, 2014, 270 days from
enactment of Pub. L. 113-79.
Abstract: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
promulgated the current Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
regulation on January 15, 2009, through an interim rule. The interim
rule incorporated programmatic changes authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Act). NRCS published a
correction to the interim rule on March 12, 2009, and an amendment to
the interim rule on May 29, 2009. NRCS has implemented EQIP in FY 2009
through FY 2013 under the current regulation. The Agricultural Act of
2014 (2014 Act) amended chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 by making the following changes to EQIP
program requirements: (1) Eliminates requirement that contract must
remain in place for a minimum of one year after last practice
implemented, but keeps requirement that the contract term is not to
exceed 10 years; (2) consolidates elements of Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP) and repeals WHIP authority; (3) replaces
rolling six-year payment limitation with payment limitation for FY
2014-FY 2018; (4) requires Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)
reporting no later than December 31, 2014, and every two years
thereafter; (4) establishes payment limitation at $450,000 and
eliminates waiver authority; (5) modifies the special rule for foregone
income payments for certain associated management practices and
resource concern priorities; (6) makes advance payments available up to
50 percent for eligible historically underserved participants to
purchase material or contract services instead of the previous 30
percent; (7) provides flexibility for repayment of advance payment if
not expended within 90 days; and (8) requires that for each fiscal year
from of the FY 2014 to FY 2018, at least 5 percent of available EQIP
funds shall be targeted for wildlife-related conservation practices.
The 2014 Act further identifies EQIP as a contributing program
authorized to accomplish the purposes of the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) (subtitle I of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended). RCPP replaces the Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP),
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and the Great
Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control. Like the
programs it replaces, RCPP will operate through regulations in place
for contributing programs. The other contributing programs include the
Conservation Stewardship Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve Program,
and the new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). NRCS
published an interim rule to incorporate the 2014 Act changes to EQIP
program administration. This regulation action is pursuant to section
1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by section 2608 of
the 2014 Act, which requires regulations necessary to implement title
II of the 2014 Act be promulgated through the interim rule process.
Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act)
consolidated several of the title XII conservation programs and
provided for the continued operations of former programs. NRCS updated
the EQIP regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes, including
consolidation of the
[[Page 77734]]
purposes formerly addressed through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP). This action is needed to respond to comments received.
Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 Act has reauthorized and amended
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP was first
added to the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3801 et
seq.) by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(1996 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3839aa). The program is implemented under the
general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who is a Vice
President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Alternatives: NRCS considered only making the changes mandated by
the 2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would have missed opportunities to
improve the implementation of the program.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Through EQIP, NRCS provides
assistance to farmers and ranchers to conserve and enhance soil, water,
air, and related natural resources on their land. Eligible lands
include cropland, grassland, rangeland, pasture, wetlands,
nonindustrial private forest land, and other agricultural land on which
agricultural or forest-related products, or livestock are produced and
natural resource concerns may be addressed. Participation in the
program is voluntary.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the
folowing:
Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement
EQIP.
Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS
program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are the following:
All program participants must follow the same
requirements, even though they are very different types of agricultural
operations in different resource contexts.
Most program participants are required to contribute at
least 25 percent of the resources needed to implement program
practices. However, such costs are standard for such financial
assistance programs.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/12/14 79 FR 73953
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 12/12/14
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 02/10/15
End.
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0578-AA62
USDA--NRCS
14. Conservation Stewardship Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d to 3838g
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1470.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: NRCS published an interim rule to incorporate the
Agriculture Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) changes to Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) program administration. This regulatory
action is pursuant to section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985
(1985 Act), as amended by the 2014 Act, which requires regulations
necessary to implement title II of the 2014 Act through an interim rule
with request for comments.
Background: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Act
(2008 Act) amended the 1985 Act to establish CSP and authorized the
program in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The 2014 Act re-authorized
and revised CSP. The purpose of CSP is to encourage producers to
address priority resource concerns and improve and conserve the quality
and condition of the natural resources in a comprehensive manner by (1)
undertaking additional conservation activities, and (2) improving,
maintaining, and managing existing conservation activities. The
Secretary of Agriculture delegated authority to the Chief, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), to administer CSP. Through CSP,
NRCS provides financial and technical assistance to eligible producers
to conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources
on their land. Eligible lands include private or tribal cropland,
grassland, pastureland, rangeland, non-industrial private forest lands,
and other land in agricultural areas (including cropped woodland,
marshes, and agricultural land capable of being used for the production
of livestock) on which resource concerns related to agricultural
production could be addressed. Participation in the program is
voluntary. CSP encourages land stewards to improve their conservation
performance by installing and adopting additional activities, and
improving, maintaining, and managing existing activities on eligible
land. NRCS makes funding for CSP available nationwide on a continuous
application basis.
Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act)
amended several of the title XII conservation programs and provided for
the continued operations of former programs. NRCS updated the CSP
regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes. This action is responds
to comments received.
Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 Act has reauthorized and amended
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). CSP was first added to the
Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) by the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The program is implemented
under the general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who
is a Vice President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Alternatives: NRCS considered only making the changes mandated by
the 2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would have missed opportunities to
improve the implementation of the program. NRCS would consider
alternatives suggested during the public comment period.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CSP is a voluntary program that
encourages agricultural and forestry producers to address priority
resource concerns by (1) undertaking additional conservation activities
and (2) improving and maintaining existing conservation systems. CSP
provides financial and technical assistance to help land stewards
conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on
their land.
CSP is available to all producers, regardless of operation size or
crops produced, in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Caribbean and Pacific Island areas. Eligible lands include cropland,
grassland, prairie land, improved pastureland, rangeland, nonindustrial
private forest land, and agricultural land under the jurisdiction of an
Indian tribe. Applicants may include individuals, legal entities, joint
operations, or Indian tribes.
CSP pays participants for conservation performance, the higher the
performance, the higher the payment. It provides two possible types of
payments. An annual payment is available for installing new
conservation activities and maintaining existing
[[Page 77735]]
practices. A supplemental payment is available to participants who also
adopt a resource conserving crop rotation.
Through five-year contracts, NRCS makes payments as soon as
practical after October 1 of each fiscal year for contract activities
installed and maintained in the previous year. A person or legal entity
may have more than one CSP contract but, for all CSP contracts
combined, may not receive more than $40,000 in any year or more than
$200,000 during any five-year period.
The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are the
following:
Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement
CSP.
Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS
program requirements.
The primary costs imposed by this regulation are that all program
participants must follow the same basic programmatic requirements, even
though they are very different types of agricultural operations in
different resource contexts.
The 2014 Act further identifies CSP as a contributing program
authorized to accomplish the purposes of the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) (subtitle I of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended). RCPP replaces the Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP),
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and the Great
Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control. Like the
programs it replaces, RCPP will operate through regulations in place
for contributing programs. The other contributing programs include the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve
Program, and the new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/05/14 79 FR 65835
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 11/05/14
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 01/05/15
End.
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0578-AA63
BILLING CODE 3410-90-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one
of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government.
Commerce'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.
Commerce 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, Commerce 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.
Commerce 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 Commerce.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The vast majority of the Commerce's programs and activities do not
involve regulation. Of Commerce'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 2016. During the next year,
NOAA plans to publish eight rulemaking actions that are designated as
Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may
also publish rulemaking actions designated as Regulatory Plan actions.
Further information on these actions is provided below.
Commerce 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 Commerce 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
[[Page 77736]]
plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of promoting
stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with
environmental stewardship, Commerce, 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. Commerce is
where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic
debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a ``win-
win'' situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries
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 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.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship
of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's
marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes
in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and
technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal
responsibility for providing sound scientific observations,
assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource
management, 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 FY 2016, 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. The MMPA allows NMFS to permit 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 MMPA 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
[[Page 77737]]
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 MMPA. 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 approximately 1,300 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 Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is
undertaking eight actions that rise to the level of ``most important''
of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in
this year's regulatory plan. A description of the eight regulatory plan
actions is provided below.
1. Revisions to the General section and Standards 1, 3, and 7 of
the National Standard Guidelines (0648-BB92): This action would propose
revisions to the National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines. National
Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act states that ``conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield
from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.'' The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) last revised the NS1
Guidelines in 2009 to reflect the requirements enacted by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006
for annual catch limits and accountability measures to end and prevent
overfishing. Since 2007, NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management
Councils have been implementing the new annual catch limit and
accountability measures requirements. Based on experience gained from
implementing annual catch limits and accountability measures, NMFS has
developed new perspectives and identified issues regarding the
application of the NS1 guidelines that may warrant them to be revised
to more fully meet the intended goal of preventing overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.
The focus of this action is to improve the NS1 guidelines.
2. Designation of Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale
(0648-AY54): The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to revise
critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. This proposal
would modify the critical habitat previously designated in 1994, based
on improved knowledge derived from a variety of studies, internal
analysis and surveys since 1994. The improved understanding of right
whale ecology and habitat needs over the last 20 years supports the
rule's proposed expansion of critical habitat in areas of the northeast
important for feeding and in southern calving grounds along the coast
from southern North Carolina to northern Florida.
3. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine
Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-AS65): The purpose of this
fishery management plan is to develop a regional permitting process for
regulating and promoting environmentally sound and economically
sustainable aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone.
This fishery management plan consists of ten actions, each with an
associated range of management alternatives, which would facilitate the
permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 offshore aquaculture operations in
the Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years, with an estimated annual
production of up to 64 million pounds. By establishing a regional
permitting process for aquaculture, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council will be positioned to achieve their primary goal of
increasing maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield of federal
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico by supplementing harvest of wild caught
species with cultured product. This rulemaking would outline a
regulatory permitting process for aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico,
including: (1) Required permits; (2) duration of permits; (3) species
allowed; (4) designation of sites for aquaculture; (5) reporting
requirements; and (6) regulations to aid in enforcement.
4. Requirements for Importation of Fish and Fish Products under the
U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (0648-AY15): With this action, the
National Marine Fisheries Service is developing procedures to implement
the provisions of section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
for imports of fish and fish products. Those provisions require the
Secretary of Treasury to ban imports of fish and fish products from
fisheries with bycatch of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards.
The provisions further require the Secretary of Commerce to insist on
reasonable proof from exporting nations of the effects on marine
mammals of bycatch incidental to fisheries that harvest the fish and
fish products to be imported.
5. Revision to the Definition of Destruction or Adverse
Modification of Critical Habitat (0648-BB80): The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's and the National Marine Fisheries Service's revision
of the regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse modification''
of critical habitat will establish a binding regulatory definition to
replace the 1986 definition that was invalidated by Federal courts.
6. Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical
Habitat (0648-BB79): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and the
National Marine Fisheries Service's rule will amend portions of 50 CFR
424 to clarify procedures for designating and revising critical
habitat. The rule makes minor changes to the scope and purpose, alters
some definitions, and clarifies the criteria for designating critical
habitat.
7. Final Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (0648-BB82): This policy provides the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's and the National Marine Fisheries Service's
position on how we consider partnerships and conservation plans,
conservation plans permitted under section 10 of the ESA, tribal lands,
military lands, Federal lands, national security and homeland security
impacts, and economic impacts in the exclusion process. The policy will
complement the amendment to the regulations regarding impact analyses
of critical habitat designations and clarify
[[Page 77738]]
critical habitat exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and
provide for a credible and predictable critical habitat exclusion
process.
8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;
Seafood Import Monitoring Program (0648-BF09): The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act prohibits the importation and
trade in interstate commerce of fishery products from fish caught in in
violation of any foreign law or regulation.
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 adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and
treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to
prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to
protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
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
regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered
by foreign governments. The National Security 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,
provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base
to support the national defense 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 the 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 nine offices covering
the United States. BIS export control officers are also 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
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, known as the Export Control Reform
Initiative (ECRI), 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 customers, and will allow the
Government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive export items
in order to enhance national security.
Under the President's approach, agencies are to apply the criteria
and revise the lists of munitions and dual-use items that are
controlled for export so that they:
Distinguish the transactions that should be subject to
stricter levels of control from those where more permissive levels of
control are appropriate;
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, which will add to BIS'
export control purview, military related items that the President
determines no longer warrant control under rules administered by the
State Department.
As the agency responsible for leading the administration and
enforcement of U.S. export controls on dual-use and other items
warranting controls but not under the provisions of export control
regulations administered by other departments, BIS plays a central role
in the Administration's efforts to 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 FY 2011, BIS began implementing the ECRI with a final rule (76
FR 35275, June 16, 2011) implementing a license exception that
authorizes exports, reexports and transfers to destinations that do not
pose a national security concern, provided certain safeguards against
diversion to other destinations are taken. Additionally, BIS began
publishing proposed rules to add to its Commerce Control List (CCL),
military items the President determined no longer warranted control by
the Department of State. BIS continued to publish such proposed rules
in FY 2012.
In FY 2013, BIS crossed an important milestone with publication of
two final rules that began to put ECRI policies into place. An Initial
Implementation rule (78 FR 22660, April 16, 2013) set in place the
structure under which items the President determines no longer warrant
control on the United States Munitions List are controlled on the
Commerce Control List. It also revised license exceptions and
regulatory definitions, including the definition of ``specially
designed'' to make those exceptions and definitions clearer and to more
closely align them with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations,
and added to the CCL certain military aircraft, gas turbine engines and
related items. A second final rule (78 FR 40892, July 8, 2012) followed
on by adding to the CCL military vehicles, vessels of war submersible
vessels, and auxiliary military equipment that President determined no
longer warrant control on the USML.
BIS continued its ECRI efforts and by the end of fiscal year 2015
had published final rules adding to the CCL additional items that the
President determined no longer warrant control under rules administered
by the State Department in the following categories: Military training
equipment; Explosives and energetic materials; Personal protective
equipment; Launch vehicles and rockets; Spacecraft; and Military
Electronics. During fiscal year 2015, BIS published proposed rules that
would add to the CCL items related to: Fire control, range finder,
optical and guidance and control equipment; Toxicological Agents; and
Directed energy weapons. BIS expects to continue with publication of
proposed and final rules to add items to the CCL as part it the ECRI in
fiscal year 2016.
[[Page 77739]]
During fiscal year 2015, BIS initiated a process of evaluating the
effectiveness of its ECRI efforts. The first action in this process was
publication of a notice seeking public comments on the treatment of
military aircraft and gas turbine engines, the first two categories of
items added to the CCL by this initiative. The notice sought public
input on whether the regulations are clear, do not inadvertently
control items in normal commercial use as military items, account for
technological developments, and properly implement the national
security and foreign policy objectives of the reform effort. BIS
anticipates that this will be the first in a series of such notices
that will be published after the public has had time to develop
experience with each regulation that added categories of items to the
CCL.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``international
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in
E.O. 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in
its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to
significant regulations.
The Department of Commerce engages with numerous international
bodies in various forums to promote the Department's priorities and
foster regulations that do not ``impair the ability of American
business to export and compete internationally.'' E.O. 13609(a). For
example, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is working with
the European Patent Office to develop a new classification system for
both offices' use. The Bureau of Industry and Security, along with the
Department of State and Department of Defense, engages with other
countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the international
community develops a common list of items that should be subject to
export controls because they are conventional arms or items that have
both military and civil uses. Other multilateral export control regimes
include the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, and the Australia Group, which lists items controlled for
chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation purposes. In addition,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration works with other
countries' regulatory bodies through regional fishery management
organizations to develop fair and internationally-agreed-to fishery
standards for the High Seas.
BIS is also engaged, in partnership with the Departments of State
and Defense, in revising the regulatory framework for export control,
through the President's Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI).
Through this effort, the United States Government is moving certain
items currently controlled by the United States Military List (USML) to
the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS' Export Administration
Regulations. The objective of ECRI is to improve interoperability of
U.S. military forces with those of allied countries, strengthen the
U.S. industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for
foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid U.S.-origin content and
services, and allow export control officials to focus Government
resources on transactions that pose greater concern. Once fully
implemented, the new export control framework also will benefit
companies in the United States seeking to export items through more
flexible and less burdensome export controls.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the Department has
identified several rulemakings as being associated with retrospective
review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of
regulations plan. Accordingly, the Agency is reviewing these rules to
determine whether action under E.O. 13563 is appropriate. Some of these
entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in
the Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these
completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on
Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for the Agency. These
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov.
Two rulemakings that are the product of the Agency's retrospective
review are from BIS and NOAA. BIS' rule streamlining the support
documentation requirements in the Export Administration Regulations,
published March 13, 2015, was the first comprehensive revision of these
requirements in twenty years. The rule reduced the paperwork burden on
U.S. exporters without compromising regulatory objectives and clarified
the remaining requirements to aid compliance.
NOAA continues to demonstrate great success in fishery
sustainability managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with near-record
landings and revenue accomplished while rebuilding stocks across the
country and preventing overfishing. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization in 2007, NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management
Councils have implemented annual catch limits and accountability
measures in every fishery management plan under National Standard One
of the act. Informed by a robust public process that gained input
through a public summit (Managing our Nation's Fisheries), visits to
each region and Council and multiple public hearings, NMFS took the
experience gained from 8 years of implementation of National Standard
One and has proposed multiple substantive, technical changes to the
National Standard One rule that will improve implementation and
continue to support healthy fisheries.
For more information, the most recent E.O. 13563 progress report
for the Department can be found here: http://open.commerce.gov/news/2015/03/20/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules-0.
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department
consisting of three Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force),
nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field
Activities. It has 1,304,807 military personnel and 866,923 civilians
assigned as of June 30, 2015, 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 (E.O.) 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
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing
[[Page 77740]]
and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. In order to develop the best possible
regulations that embody the principles and objectives embedded in E.O.
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 a straightforward, yet formidable, undertaking.
DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be
significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's
regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its
program, not only receives coordinating actions from other 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 E.O. 12866.
International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in E.O. 13609, ``international regulatory
cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S.
trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public health,
welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in E.O.
13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in its
Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation
activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant
regulations.
The Department of Defense, along with the Departments of State and
Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement,
Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology
Control Regime through which the international community develops a
common list of items that should be subject to export controls. DoD has
been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform
effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List
and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have
facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners
while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and
proliferation concern. DoD will continue to assess new and emerging
technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and
intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international
export control regime lists.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory
Identification Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Several are of particular
interest to small businesses. The entries on this list are completed
actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more
information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed
Actions section for DoD. These rulemakings can also be found on
Regulations.gov. We will continue to identify retrospective review
regulations as they are published and report on the progress of the
overall plan biannually. DoD's final agency plan and all updates to the
plan can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-
2011-OS-0036
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule title (*expected to
RIN significantly reduce burdens on
small businesses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0703-AA90............................ Guidelines for Archaeological
Investigation Permits and Other
Research on Sunken Military
Craft and Terrestrial Military
Craft Under the Jurisdiction of
the Department of the Navy.
0703-AA92............................ Professional Conduct of Attorneys
Practicing Under the Cognizance
and Supervision of the Judge
Advocate General.
0710-AA66............................ Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Rule.
0710-AA60............................ Nationwide Permit Program
Regulations.*
0750-AG47............................ Safeguarding Unclassified
Controlled Technical Information
(DFARS Case 2011-D039).
0750-AG62............................ Patents, Data, and Copyrights
(DFARS Case 2010-D001).
0750-AH11............................ Only One Offer (DFARS Case 2011-
D013).
0750-AH19............................ Accelerated Payments to Small
Business (DFARS Case 2011-D008).
0750-AH54............................ Performance-Based Payments (DFARS
Case 2011-D045).
0750-AH70............................ Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty
With Australia and the United
Kingdom (DFARS Case 2012-D034).
0750-AH86............................ Forward Pricing Rate Proposal
Adequacy Checklist (DFARS Case
2012-D035).
0750-AH87............................ System for Award Management Name
Changes, Phase 1 Implementation
(DFARS Case 2012-D053).
0750-AH90............................ Clauses With Alternates--
Transportation (DFARS Case 2012-
D057).
0750-AH94............................ Clauses with Alternates--Foreign
Acquisition (DFARS Case 2013-
D005).
0750-AH95............................ Clauses with Alternates--Quality
Assurance (DFARS Case 2013-
D004).
0750-AI02............................ Clauses with Alternates--Contract
Financing (DFARS Case 2013-
D014).
0750-AI10............................ Clauses with Alternates--Research
and Development Contracting
(DFARS Case 2013-D026).
0750-AI19............................ Clauses with Alternates--Taxes
(DFARS Case 2013-D025).
0750-AI27............................ Clauses with Alternates--Special
Contracting Methods, Major
System Acquisition, and Service
Contracting (DFARS Case 2014-
D004).
0750-AI03............................ Approval of Rental Waiver
Requests (DFARS Case 2013-D006).
0750-AI07............................ Storage, Treatment, and Disposal
of Toxic or Hazardous Materials--
Statutory Update (DFARS Case
2013-D013).
0750-AI18............................ Photovoltaic Devices (DFARS Case
2014-D006).
0750-AI34............................ State Sponsors of Terrorism
(DFARS Case 2014-D014).
0750-AI43............................ Inflation Adjustment of
Acquisition-Related Thresholds.
0790-AI42............................ Personnel Security Program.
0790-AI54............................ Defense Support of Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies.
0790-AI77............................ Provision of Early Intervention
and Special Education Services
to Eligible DoD Dependents.
0790-AI86............................ Defense Logistics Agency Privacy
Program.
0790-AI87............................ Defense Logistics Agency Freedom
of Information Act Program.
[[Page 77741]]
0790-AI88............................ Shelter for the Homeless.
0790-AJ03............................ DoD Privacy Program.
0790-AJ06............................ Voluntary Education Programs.
0790-AJ10............................ Enhancement of Protections on
Consumer Credit for Members of
the Armed Forces and Their
Dependents.
Pursuant to Executive Order
13563, DoD also removed 32 CFR
part 513, ``Indebtedness of
Military Personnel,'' because
the part is obsolete and the
governing policy is now codified
at 32 CFR part 112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration Priorities
1. Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in
excess of costs.
The Department plans to finalize the following Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules:
Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS case
2012-D050). This final rule implements section 806 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as amended
by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 806 requires
contracting officers to evaluate an offerors supply chain risk when
purchasing information technology related to national security systems.
This rule enables agencies to exclude sources identified as having a
supply chain risk from consideration for award of a covered contract,
in order to minimize the potential risk for supplies and services
purchased by DoD to maliciously degrade the integrity and operation of
sensitive information technology systems. The cost impact will vary by
solicitation or contract, depending on the level of potential harm to
DoD systems that may be avoided by excluding a source with an
unacceptable supply chain risk. However, DoD anticipates significant
savings to taxpayers by reducing the risk of unsafe products entering
the supply chain, which pose a serious threat to sensitive government
information technology systems and put in jeopardy the safety of our
military forces.
Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud
Services (DFARS case 2013-D018). This final rule implements section 941
of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015.
Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to report penetrations
of networks and information systems and allows DoD personnel access to
equipment and information to assess the impact of reported
penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor designated as
operationally critical must report each time a cyber-incident occurs on
that contractor's network or information systems. Ultimately, DoD
anticipates significant savings to taxpayers as a result of this rule,
by improving information security for DoD information that resides in
or transits through contractor systems and a cloud environment. Recent
high-profile breaches of Federal information show the need to ensure
that information security protections are clearly, effectively, and
consistently addressed in contracts. This rule will help protect
covered defense information or other Government data from compromise
and protect against the loss of operationally critical support
capabilities, which could directly impact national security.
Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation (DFARS case 2014-D005). This final rule further
implements section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section
817 of the NDAA for FY 2015. Section 818, as modified by section 817,
addresses required sources of electronic parts for defense contractors
and subcontractors. This rule requires DoD and its contractors and
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, to acquire electronic
parts from trusted suppliers. The rule also requires DoD contractors
and subcontractors that are not the original component manufacturer, to
notify the Government if it is not possible to obtain an electronic
part from a trusted supplier and to be responsible for the inspection,
test, and authentication of such parts in accordance with existing
industry standards. Such validation of new parts and new suppliers are
steps that a prudent contractor would take notwithstanding this rule.
The benefits associated with avoiding the acquisition of counterfeit
electronic parts, which could directly impact national security, far
outweigh the minimal cost impact associated with the notification
requirement imposed by this rule.
2. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive
Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS case 2015-D013). This
proposed rule implements section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 regarding
the Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans.
The Test Program was established under section 834 of the NDAAs for FYs
1990 and 1992 to determine whether the negotiation and administration
of comprehensive small business subcontracting plans would result in an
increase of opportunities provided for small business concerns under
DoD contracts. A comprehensive subcontracting plan (CSP) can be
negotiated on a corporate, division, or sector level, rather than
contract by contract. This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to: (1)
Extend the Test Program through December 31, 2017; (2) require
contracting officers to consider an offerors failure to make a good
faith effort to comply with its CSP in past performance evaluations;
and (3) inform program participants that a CSP will not be negotiated
with a contractor that did not meet the small business goals negotiated
in its prior CSP. This rule is of particular interest to small
businesses because it holds prime contractors that are participating in
the program accountable for the small business goals established in
their CSP, resulting in increased business opportunities for small
business subcontractors.
3. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified
burdens, and minimize burdens on small businesses.
The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule--
Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items (DFARS case 2014-
D026). This final rule requires the use of the electronic contract
attachments to record and track warranty data and source of repair
information for serialized items in the Product Data Reporting and
Evaluation Program (PDREP) system. While contracting officers are
encouraged to use the electronic attachments, currently, it is not
mandatory in the DFARS. As a result, offerors may propose warranty
terms in paper form, which are later manually input into the PDREP
system when a contract is awarded. On the other hand, the electronic
contract attachments are designed to easily upload to the PDREP system,
which reduces: (1) The potential burden of manually entering warranty
terms in multiple places, and (2) inaccuracies in
[[Page 77742]]
the data reported. By making use of these attachments mandatory, the
rule provides DoD the ability to more effectively track warranty data
and source of repair information for serialized items in a single
repository of warranty terms.
4. Rules to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make
the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in
achieving the regulatory objectives.
The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule--
Clauses with Alternates--Small Business Programs (DFARS
case 2015-D017). This final rule amends those contract clauses
associated with small business programs that are prescribed for use
with an ``alternate.'' A contracting officer selects a basic clause for
inclusion in a contract based on the clause prescription contained in
the DFARS. Some clause prescriptions require the use of ``alternate''
text within a basic clause depending on the circumstances of the
acquisition. In lieu of listing the basic clause and any alternate text
separately, this rule proposes to include in the regulation the full
text of both the basic clause with the alternate clause. This new
convention will facilitate selection of clauses with alternates using
automated contract writing systems and ensure paragraphs from the basic
clause that should be superseded by alternate text are not
inadvertently included in the solicitation or contract. As a result,
the terms of a solicitation and contract are clearly communicated to
offerors and contractors who consider such terms during proposal
development and contract performance.
5. Rulemakings that have a significant international impact.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
Contractors Performing Private Security Functions (DFARS
case 2015-D021). During contingency operations, humanitarian or peace
operations, or other military operations or exercises, DoD employs
private security contractors (PSCs) to guard personnel, facilities,
designated sites, or property of Federal agencies, the contractor or
subcontractor, or a third party. Requirements for DoD contractors
performing private security functions outside the United States are
currently contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and
supplemented by the DFARS. This rule proposes to streamline the
regulation by consolidating all terms and conditions for DoD PSCs in a
single DFARS clause, which can be updated by DoD in a more efficient
and timely manner. This rule will also provide an alternative to the
high-level quality assurance standard required by the DFARS for PSCs.
Contract quality requirements fall into four general categories,
depending on the extent of quality assurance needed by the Government
for the acquisition involved. In the case of PSC's, the high-level
quality standard, ``Management System for Quality of Private Security
Company Operations--Requirements with Guidance, ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012''
is mandatory. The alternative proposed by this rule for PSCs (ISO
18788: Management System Private Security Operations--Requirements with
Guidance) is substantially the same as ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 and is more
widely accepted on an international basis.
Specific DoD Priorities: For this regulatory plan, there are five
specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established
regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the
most serious 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, health affairs, transition assistance, and
cyber security.
1. Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Department of Defense
DPAP continuously reviews the DFARS and continues to lead
Government efforts to--
Improve the presentation, clarity, and streamlining of the
regulation by: (1) Implementing the new convention to construct clauses
with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate clauses are included
in full-text; (2) removing guidance that does not have a significant
effect beyond the internal operating procedure of the Department or
impose a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or
offerors, which is more appropriately addressed in the DFARS
Procedures, Guidance, and Information; and (3) removing obsolete
reporting or other requirements imposed on contractors. Such
improvements ensure that the regulation contracting officers,
contractors, and offerors have a clear understanding of the rules for
doing business with the Department of Defense.
Obtain early engagement with industry on procurement
topics of high public interest by: (1) Utilizing the DPAP Defense
Acquisition Regulation System Web site to obtain early public feedback
on newly enacted legislation that impacts the Department's acquisition
regulations, prior to initiating rulemaking to draft the implementing
rules; and (2) holding public meetings to solicit industry feedback on
proposed rulemakings.
Employ methods to facilitate and improve efficiency of the
contracting process such as: (1) Requiring the use of electronic forms;
and (2) establishing that electronic contract documents contained in
Electronic Data Access system are official contract documents. Use of
electronic means to accomplish the contracting process: (1) Reduces the
burden on both industry and the Department associated with manual and
duplicative data entry, and (2) removes limitations on access to
information.
2. Health Affairs, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of
wartime readiness and peacetime health care for those entitled to DoD
medical care and benefits by operating an extensive network of military
medical treatment facilities supplemented by services furnished by
civilian health care providers and facilities through the TRICARE
program as administered under DoD contracts. TRICARE is a major health
care program designed to improve the management and integration of
DoD's health care delivery system.
The Department of Defense's Military Health System (MHS) continues
to meet the challenge of providing the world's finest combat medicine
and aeromedical evacuation, while supporting peacetime health care for
those entitled to DoD medical care and benefits at home and abroad. The
MHS brings together the worldwide health care resources of the
Uniformed Services (often referred to as ``direct care,'' usually
within military treatment facilities) and supplements this capability
with services furnished by network and non-network civilian health care
professionals, institutions, pharmacies, and suppliers, through the
TRICARE program as administered under DoD contracts, to provide access
to high quality health care services while maintaining the capability
to support military operations. The TRICARE program serves 9.5 million
Active Duty Service Members, National Guard and Reserve members,
retirees, their families, survivors, and certain former spouses
worldwide. TRICARE continues to offer an increasingly integrated and
comprehensive health care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits
and programs in a manner consistent with the law, industry
[[Page 77743]]
standard of care, and best practices, to meet the changing needs of its
beneficiaries. The program's goal is to increase access to health care
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
The Defense Health Agency plans to publish the following rule--
Proposed Rule: TRICARE Mental Health and Substance Abuse.
This rule proposes revisions to the TRICARE regulation to reduce
administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit coverage and
to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for TRICARE
beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department of Defense and
Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards of practice in
mental health and addition medicine, and governing laws. This proposed
rule has four main objectives: (1) To eliminate of quantitative and
qualitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental health benefit
coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental health and SUD
benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical benefits; (2) to
expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under TRICARE, to
include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and treatment of
opioid dependence; (3) to streamline the requirements for institutional
providers to become TRICARE authorized providers; and (4) to develop
TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized mental health
and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid treatment programs.
DoD anticipates publishing the proposed rule in the second quarter of
FY 2016.
3. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish rules regarding
transition assistance for military personnel and sexual assault
prevention--
Interim Final Rule: Transition Assistance for Military
Personnel (TAP). This rule establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for administration of the
DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The goal of TAP is to prepare
all eligible members of the Military Services for a transition to
civilian life, including preparing them to meet Career Readiness
Standards (CRS). The TAP provides information and training to ensure
Service members leaving Active Duty and eligible Reserve Component
Service members being released from active duty are prepared for their
next step in life whether pursuing additional education, finding a job
in the public or private sector, starting their own business or other
form of self-employment, or returning to school or an existing job.
Service members receive training to meet CRS through the Transition GPS
(Goals, Plans, Success) curricula, including a core curricula and
individual tracks focused on Accessing Higher Education, Career
Technical Training, and Entrepreneurship. All Service members who are
separating, retiring, or being released from a period of 180 days or
more of continuous Active Duty must complete all mandatory requirements
of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act, which includes pre-
separation counseling to develop an Individual Transition Plan (ITP)
and identify their career planning needs; attend the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings I and II to understand what VA
benefits the Service member earned, how to apply for them, and leverage
them for a positive economic outcome; and attend the Department of
Labor Employment Workshop (DOLEW), which focuses on the mechanics of
resume writing, networking, job search skills, interview skills, and
labor market research. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final
rule in the first quarter of FY 2016.
Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response (SAPR) Program. The purpose of this rule is to implement
DoD policy and assign responsibilities for the SAPR Program on
prevention, response, and oversight of sexual assault. The goal is for
DoD to establish a culture free of sexual assault through an
environment of prevention, education and training, response capability,
victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability
that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates
publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures. This rule establishes policy,
assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the
SAPR Program. It establishes processes and procedures for the Sexual
Assault Forensic Examination Kit, the multidisciplinary Case Management
Group, and guidance on how to handle sexual assault, SAPR minimum
program standards, SAPR training requirements, and SAPR requirements
for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. The DoD
goal is a culture free of sexual assault through an environment of
prevention, education and training, response capability, victim
support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that
enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates
publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
4. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish the final rule for the
Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) Activities that
implements statutory requirements for mandatory cyber incident
reporting while maintaining the voluntary cyber threat information
sharing program.
Interim Final Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber
Security (CS) Activities. DoD revised its DoD-DIB Cybersecurity (CS)
Activities regulation to mandate reporting of cyber incidents that
result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on a covered
contractor information system or covered defense information residing
therein, or on a contractor's ability to provide operationally critical
support, and modify eligibility criteria to permit greater
participation in the voluntary DoD-Defense Industrial Base (DIB)
Cybersecurity (CS) information sharing program. DoD anticipates
publishing the final rule in the fourth quarter of FY 2016.
DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Proposed Rule Stage
15. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113; Pub. L. 109-364; Pub. L. 109-163;
Pub. L. 108-375; Pub. L. 106-65; Pub. L. 110-417; Pub. L. 111-84; Pub.
L. 112-81; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L. 113-291
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 103.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This part implements Department of Defense (DoD) policy
and assigns responsibilities for the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response (SAPR) Program on prevention, response, and oversight to
sexual assault. It is DoD policy to establish a culture free of sexual
assault through an environment of prevention, education and training,
response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and
appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and wellbeing of
all persons covered by this regulation.
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to implement DoD
policy and assign responsibilities for the Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response (SAPR) Program on prevention, response, and oversight to
sexual assault.
[[Page 77744]]
Summary of Legal Basis: Establishes SAPR minimum program standards,
SAPR training requirements, and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual
Report on Sexual Assault in the Military consistent with title 10,
United States Code, the DoD Task Force Report on Care for Victims of
Sexual Assault and pursuant to DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, DoDD
6495.01, and Public Laws 106-65, 108-375, 109-163, 109-364, 110-417,
111-84, 111-383, 112-81, 112-239, 113-66, and 113-291.
Alternatives: The Department of Defense will lack comprehensive
SAPR program policy guidance on the prevention and response to sexual
assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The DoD will not
have guidance to establish a culture free of sexual assault through an
environment of prevention, education and training, response capability,
victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability
that enhances the safety and well being of all persons covered by this
part (32 CFR 103) and 32 CFR 105. DoD will lack the policy guidance to
promulgate requirements mandated in the National Defense Authorization
Acts.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Fiscal Year 2014 Operation and
Maintenance funding for DoD SAPRO was $26.798 million with an
additional Congressional allocation of $25.3 million designated for the
Special Victims' Counsel program and the Special Victims' Investigation
and Prosecution capability that was reprogrammed to the Military
Services and the National Guard Bureau. Additionally, each of the
Military Services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic
costs arising from the implementation of the training, prevention,
reporting, response, and oversight requirements established by this
rule.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) A complete and up-to-date SAPR Policy consisting of this part
and 32 CFR 105, to include comprehensive SAPR policy guidance on the
prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Guidance and policy with which the DoD may establish a culture
free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention, education
and training, response capability, victim support, reporting
procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and
well being of all persons covered by this part and 32 CFR 105.
(3) Requirement to provide care that is gender-responsive,
culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. Sexual assault patients
shall be given priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care
shall consist of emergency healthcare and the offer of a Sexual Assault
Forensic Examination (SAFE). The victim shall be advised that even if a
SAFE is declined the victim is encouraged (but not mandated) to receive
medical care, psychological care, and victim advocacy.
(4) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines,
protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on
awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
(5) An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability shall
be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations,
including in deployed locations.
(6) Victims of sexual assault shall be protected from coercion,
retaliation, and reprisal.
Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by
establishing a culture free of sexual assault. This rule aims to
mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Directive 6495.01, ``Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program''.
Agency Contact: Diana Rangoussis, Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703 696-
9422.
RIN: 0790-AJ40
DOD--OS
Final Rule Stage
16. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 47; Pub. L. 106-65; Pub. L. 108-375;
Pub. L. 109-163; Pub. L. 109-364; Pub. L. 110-417; Pub. L. 111-84; Pub.
L. 111-383; Pub. L. 112-81; Pub. L. 112-239; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L.
113-291
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The procedures discussed establish a culture of
prevention, response, and accountability that enhances the safety and
well-being of all DoD members.
Statement of Need: The rule establishes the processes and
procedures for the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) kit; the
multidisciplinary Case Management Group to include guidance for the
group on how to handle sexual assault; SAPR minimum program standards;
SAPR training requirements; and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual
Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.
Summary of Legal Basis: In February of 2004, the former Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld directed Dr. David S. C. Chu, the former
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to review the
DoD process for treatment and care of victims of sexual assault in the
Military Services. One of the recommendations emphasized the need to
establish a single point of accountability for sexual assault policy
within the Department. This led to the establishment of the Joint Task
Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and the naming of
then Brigadier General K.C. McClain as its commander in October 2004.
The Task Force focused its initial efforts on developing a new DoD-wide
sexual assault policy that incorporated recommendations set forth in
the Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault as well as
in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375). This act directed the Department to have a
sexual assault policy in place by January 1, 2005. Subsequent National
Defense Authorization Acts provided additional requirements for the
Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program
in: Section 113 of title 10, United States Code; and Public Laws 109-
364, 109-163, 108-375, 106-65, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 112-239, 113-
66, and 113-291.
Alternatives: The Department of Defense will lack comprehensive
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) procedures to implement
the DoD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
(SAPR) Program, which is the DoD policy on prevention and response to
sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The DoD
will not have guidance to establish a culture free of sexual assault
through an environment of prevention, education and training, response
capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate
accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons
covered by this part and 32 CFR 103. DoD will lack the implementing
procedures to
[[Page 77745]]
promulgate requirements mandated in the National Defense Authorization
Acts.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the
anticipated cost associated with this rule for the current fiscal year
is approximately $15.010 million. Additionally, each of the Military
Services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic costs
arising from the implementation of the training, prevention, reporting,
response, and oversight requirements established by this rule.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) A complete SAPR Policy consisting of this part and 32 CFR 103,
to include comprehensive SAPR procedures to implement the DoD Directive
6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program, which
is the DoD policy on prevention and response to sexual assaults
involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) Guidance and procedures with which the DoD may establish a
culture free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention,
education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting
procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and
well-being of all persons covered by this part (32 CFR 105) and 32 CFR
103.
(3) Requirement that medical care and SAPR services are gender-
responsive, culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. A 24 hour, 7
day per week sexual assault response capability for all locations,
including deployed areas, shall be established for persons covered in
this part. An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability
shall be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations,
including in deployed locations. Sexual assault victims shall be given
priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care shall consist
of emergency medical care and the offer of a SAFE. The victim shall be
advised that even if a SAFE is declined the victim shall be encouraged
(but not mandated) to receive medical care, psychological care, and
victim advocacy.
(4) Command sexual assault awareness and prevention programs and
DoD law enforcement and criminal justice procedures that enable persons
to be held appropriately accountable for their actions, shall be
supported by all commanders.
(5) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines,
protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on
awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
(6) Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), SAPR Victim
Advocates (VA), and other responders will assist sexual assault victims
regardless of Service affiliation.
(7) Service member and adult military dependent victims of sexual
assault shall receive timely access to comprehensive medical and
psychological treatment, including emergency care treatment and
services, as described in this part and 32 CFR 103.
(8) Military Service members who file Unrestricted and Restricted
Reports of sexual assault shall be protected from reprisal, or threat
of reprisal, for filing a report.
(9) Service members and military dependents 18 years and older who
have been sexually assaulted have two reporting options: Unrestricted
or Restricted Reporting. Unrestricted Reporting of sexual assault is
favored by the DoD. However, Unrestricted Reporting may represent a
barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no
command or DoD law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the DoD
recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure
vehicle via the Restricted Reporting option. Regardless of whether the
victim elects Restricted or Unrestricted Reporting, confidentiality of
medical information shall be maintained in accordance with DoD 6025.18-
R.
(10) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of
sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to
receive SAPR services under either reporting option. The DoD shall
provide support to an active duty Military Service member regardless of
when or where the sexual assault took place.
(11) Requirement to establish a DoD-wide certification program with
a national accreditor to ensure all sexual assault victims are offered
the assistance of a SARC or SAPR VA who has obtained this
certification.
(12) Implementing training standards that cover general SAPR
training for Service members, and contain specific standards for:
Accessions, annual, professional military education and leadership
development training, pre- and post-deployment, pre-command, General
and Field Officers and SES, military recruiters, civilians who
supervise military, and responders trainings.
(13) Requires Military Departments to establish procedures for
supporting the DoD Safe Helpline in accordance with Guidelines for the
DoD Safe Helpline for the referral database provide timely response to
victim feedback, publicize the DoD Safe Helpline to SARCs and Service
members and at military confinement facilities.
(14) Added additional responsibilities for the DoD SAPRO Director
(develop metrics for measuring effectiveness, act as liaison between
DoD and other agencies with regard to SAPR, oversee development of
strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives, quarterly
include Military Service Academies as a SAPR IPT standard agenda item,
semi-annually meet with the Superintendents of the Military Service
Academies, and develop and administer standardized and voluntary
surveys for survivors of sexual assault to comply with section 1726 of
the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2014, Public Law
113-66.
(15) Updates text throughout the issuance to reflect Defense Sexual
Assault Incident Database (DSAID) interface with MCIO case management
systems (rather than Military Service sexual assault case management
systems) and procedures for entering final case disposition information
into the database.
Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by
establishing a culture free of sexual assault. This rule aims to
mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/11/13 78 FR 21715
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/11/13
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/10/13
End.
Interim Final Rule.................. 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6495.02, ``Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures''.
Agency Contact: Teresa Scalzo, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, Phone: 703
696-8977.
RIN: 0790-AI36
DOD--OS
17. Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
[[Page 77746]]
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1141; 10 U.S.C. 1142
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 88.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The DoD is committed to providing military personnel from
across the Services access to the TAP. The TAP prepares all eligible
members of the Military Services for a transition to civilian life;
enables eligible Service members to meet the CRS as required by this
rule; and is the overarching program that provides transition
assistance, information, training, and services to eligible
transitioning Service members to prepare them to be career ready when
they transition back to civilian life. Spouses of eligible Service
members are entitled to the DOLEW, job placement counseling, DoD/VA-
administered survivor information, financial planning assistance,
transition plan assistance, VA-administered home loan services, housing
assistance benefits information, and counseling on responsible
borrowing practices.
Dependents of eligible Service members are entitled to career
change counseling and information on suicide prevention.
These revisions will: Institutionalize the implementation of the
VOW Act of 2011; require mandatory participation in the Department of
Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop (EW); implement the Transition GPS
(Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum; require development of an
Individual Transition Plan (ITP); enhance tracking of attendance at TAP
events; implement of mandatory Career Readiness Standards (CRS) for
separating Service members; and, incorporate a CAPSTONE event to
document transition readiness and reinforce Commanding Officer
accountability and support for the needs of individual Service members.
This rule improves the process of conducting transition services for
eligible separating Service members across the Military Services and
establishes the data collection foundation to build short-, medium-,
and long-term program outcomes.
Statement of Need: In August 2011, President Obama announced his
comprehensive plan to ensure America's Post 9/11 Veterans have the
support they need and deserve when they leave the military, look for a
job, and enter the civilian workforce. A key part of the President's
plan was his call for a career-ready military. Specifically, he
directed DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to work closely
with other federal agencies and the President's economic and domestic
policy teams to lead a Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force to
develop a new training and services delivery model to help strengthen
the transition readiness of Service members from military to civilian
life. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed and the President signed the
VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, Public Law 112-56, sections 201-265,
125 Stat. 715 (VOW Act), which included steps to improve the existing
TAP for Service members. Among other things, the VOW Act made
participation in several components of TAP mandatory for all Service
members (except in certain limited circumstances).
The task force delivered its initial recommendations to the
President in December 2011 which required implementation of procedures
to document Service member participation, and to demonstrate Military
Service compliance with 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 requirements. The Veterans
Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011 mandated transitioning Service
member's participation in receiving counseling and training on VA
Benefits. VA developed VA Benefits I and II Briefings to meet this
mandate. The VOW Act also mandated transitioning Service members to
received counseling and informed of services regarding employment
assistance. The Department of Labor revised its curriculum to meet this
mandate with the Department of Labor Employment Workshop. The VOW
requirements have been codified in 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 and attendance
to all Transition GPS curricula is now documented.
The redesigned TAP was developed around four core recommendations:
Adopt standards of career readiness for transitioning Service
members: Service members should leave the military having met clearly
defined standards of career readiness.
Implement a revamped TAP curriculum: Service members should be
provided with a set of value-added, individually tailored training
programs and services to equip them with the set of tools they need to
pursue their post-military goals successfully.
Implement a CAPSTONE: Service members should be afforded the
opportunity, shortly before they depart the military, to review and
verify that they have met the CRS and received the services they desire
and to be steered to the resources and benefits available to them as
Veterans.
Implement a Military Life Cycle (MLC) transition model: Transition
preparation for Service members should occur over the entire span of
their military careers not just in the last few months of their
military service.
Implementation of these recommendations transforms a Service
member' experience during separating, retiring, demobilizing, or
deactivating to make the most informed career decisions by equipping
them with the tools they need to make a successful transition.
The rule discusses a redesigned program which implements, the
transition-related provisions of the VOW Act and recommendations of the
Task Force to offer a tailored curriculum providing Service members
with useful and quality instruction with connections to the benefits
and resources available to them as Veterans. At the heart of the
redesign is the new set of CRS. Just as Service members must meet
military mission readiness standards while on Active Duty, Service
members will meet CRS before their transition to civilian life.
Spouses of eligible Service members are entitled to the DOLEW, job
placement counseling, DoD/VA-administered survivor information,
financial planning assistance, transition plan assistance, VA-
administered home loan services, housing assistance benefits
information, and counseling on responsible borrowing practices.
Dependents of eligible service members are entitled to career change
counseling and information on suicide prevention.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the
authority of title 10, U.S.C., chapter 58. Title 10, U.S.C., section
1141 defines involuntary separation; section 1142 provides the time
period the Secretary concerned shall provide for individual pre-
separation counseling for each member of the armed forces whose
discharge or release from active duty is anticipated as of a specific
date; section 1143 requires the Secretary of Defense to provide to
members of the armed forces a certification or verification of any job
skills and experience acquired while on active duty, that may have
application to employment in the civilian sector; section 1143a.
requires the Secretary of Defense to encourage members and former
members of the armed forces to enter into public and community service
jobs; section 1144 requires the Secretary of Labor, in conjunction with
the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to
establish and maintain a program to furnish counseling, assistance in
identifying employment and training opportunities, help in obtaining
such employment and training, and other related information and
services to members of the armed forces and the spouses of such members
who are transitioning; section 1145
[[Page 77747]]
prescribes transitional health benefits; section 1146 describes
commissary and exchange benefits for members involuntarily separated
from active duty; section 1147 prescribes guidance that may permit
individuals who are involuntarily separated to continue, not more than
180 days after the date of separation, to reside (along with other
members of the individual's household) in military housing provided or
leased by the DoD; section 1148 addresses relocation assistance for
personnel overseas; section 1149 provides guidance regarding excess
leave and permissive temporary duty; section 1150 prescribes guidance
for affiliation with Guard and Reserve units; section 1151 prescribes
guidance for retention of assistive technology and services provided
before separation; section 1152 allows the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with the Attorney General to establish or
participate in a program to assist eligible members and former members
to obtain employment with law enforcement agencies; section 1153 allows
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to separated Service
members to obtain employment with health care providers; and section
1154 allows the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to eligible
Service members and former members to obtain employment as teachers
(Troops-to-Teachers Program).
Alternatives: The DoD considered several alternatives:
In President Obama's speech in August of 2011 at the Washington
Navy Yard, he used the term ``Reverse Boot Camp'' to demonstrate his
vision for a redesigned TAP to increase the preparedness of Service
members to successfully transition from military service to civilian
communities. The President's use of language initiated an interagency
discussion on an approach to mirror the Military Services' basic or
initial entry training programs. This approach would require the
Military Services to devote approximately 9 to 13 weeks, depending on
curriculum development, outcome measures, assessments and individual
military readiness and cultural differences, to afford Service members
the opportunity to use all aspects of a rigorous transition preparation
program.
While no cost estimates were conducted, this approach was deemed
both expensive and would jeopardize DoD's ability to maintain mission
readiness. Approximately 200,000-250,000 Service members leave DOD each
year. To concentrate on transition preparation during the last 9 to 13
weeks of an individual's military career would not be workable since
mission readiness could not absorb the impact of the void.
Additionally, there would be an increased expense required to activate
or mobilize Reserve Component or National Guard personnel for the 9 to
13 weeks prior to transition. Finally, logistical challenges could
result from Service members dealing with TAP requirements while
deployed. For example, units scheduled to mobilize would be delayed
because a returning unit could occupy facilities (such as billeting,
classrooms, and training areas) that the deploying units needed to
train and prepare for mobilization.
A second alternative considered was establishment of regional
residential transition centers staffed by personnel from all Military
Services, the Departments of VA, Labor (DOL), and Homeland Security
(U.S. Coast Guard), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and
the OPM. Transitioning Service members would be sent on temporary duty
for a period of four to six weeks, 12 months prior to their separation
or retirement date to receive transition services. Eligible Reserve
Component Service members would be assigned to the centers as a
continuation of their demobilization out-processing. The potential
costs to build or modify existing facilities, or rent facilities that
would meet regional residential transition center requirements, as well
as costs for Service member travel to and from the regional centers,
reduced the viability of this approach.
A third, less expensive option would have left the existing TAP
program intact without increasing counselor and curriculum facilitation
resources. This option would not have accountability systems and
procedures to demonstrate compliance with the VOW Act that mandates
pre-separation counseling, attendance at the DOL's three day Employment
Workshop (DOLEW), and attendance at two VA briefings. Due to increasing
Veteran unemployment and homeless percentages at the time of the
decision, and the rebalancing of the military force, this cost neutral
approach would not have the outcome based capability intended to
develop career ready skills in transitioning Service members. This
option, which would not have met the requirements of the law, would
cost the Military Services approximately $70M versus the fiscal year
2013 (FY13) $122M for the implementation of the re-designed TAP.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The VOW Act mandated pre-separation
counseling, VA Benefits Briefings I and II, and the DOLEW and these
components were implemented in November 2012. On the same day the VOW
Act requirements became mandatory, DoD published a policy to make CRS
and Commanding Officer verification that Service members are meeting
CRS, mandatory. Vow Act compliance and CRS must be met by all Service
members after they have served 180 days in active duty status. Service
members must attend Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum
modules that build career readiness if they cannot meet the CRS on
their own. In cases where Service members receive a punitive or Under
Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, Commanding Officers have the
discretion of determining participation in the other than mandatory
Transition GPS curricula. By policy, all Service members who do not
meet the CRS will receive a warm handover to DOL, VA, or other
resources targeted at improving career readiness in the area where the
standard was not met.
The entire Transition GPS curriculum is now available online
through Joint Knowledge Online (JKO); however, Service members must
attend pre-separation counseling, VA briefings, and the DOLEW in
person. All other curriculum can be accessed through the JKO virtual
platform. The virtual curriculum (VC) was launched at the beginning of
FY14. DoD expected a cost savings in FY14 due to use of the VC but the
cost avoidance cannot be calculated as VC utilization is appropriate on
a Service member-by-Service member basis.
Further, resource requirements for DoD become more predictable when
transition assistance is provided at pre-determined points throughout
the MLC TAP model, mitigating the impacts of surge periods when large
numbers of Service members separate, demobilize or deactivate.
The FY13 cost to DoD to implement the TAP redesign was $122M and in
FY14 DoD costs were $85M. The difference is attributed to both
implementation costs of the updated program in FY13, and to
efficiencies discovered as implementation was completed throughout
FY14. These costs represent only the portion of the interagency program
that is paid by the DoD. The cost covers Defense civilian and
contracted staff (FTEs) salaries and benefits at 206 world-wide
locations. Civilian and contract labor account for approximately 88% of
total program costs in both fiscal years. The remaining costs include
equipment, computers (purchase, maintenance and operations),
Information Technology (IT) and architecture, data collection and
sharing, Web site development, performance evaluation and assessments,
curriculum development
[[Page 77748]]
and modifications, materials (audio-visual, CDs, eNotebooks, handouts,
interactive brick and mortar classroom sessions, virtual curriculum,
etc.), facilitation training, research, studies, and surveys. Within
DoD, the re-designed TAP capitalized upon existing resources, e.g., use
of certified financial planners housed in the Military Services' family
centers to conduct financial planning or military education counselors
used to conduct the Accessing Higher Education (AHE) track. Other
efficiencies include reuse or upgrades to current facilities and
classrooms used to deliver legacy TAP. Implementation costs in FY13
included equipping classrooms to allow for individual internet access
and train-the-trainer workshops to deliver the DoD portions of the
Transition GPS curriculum. Examples of efficiencies discovered in FY14
include providing train-the-trainer courses through webinars and
savings associated with Service members using the VC.
The DoD provides military spouses the statutory requirements of TAP
as prescribed in Title 10, United States Code. Other elements of TAP,
prescribed by DoD policy, are available to spouses if resources and
space permits. Military spouses can attend the brick and mortar
Transition GPS curriculum at no cost on a nearby military installation.
They can also take the entire Transition GPS curriculum online,
virtually, at any time, from anywhere with a computer or laptop for
free.
Many of our Veteran and Military Service Organizations, employers
and local communities provide transition support services to local
installations. Installation Commanders are strongly encouraged to
permit access to Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) and Military
Service Organizations (MSOs) to provide transition assistance-related
events and activities in the United States and abroad at no cost to the
government. Two memos signed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
reinforce such access. The memos are effective within 60 days of the
December 23 signing, and will remain in effect until the changes are
codified within DoD. Access to installations is for the purpose of
assisting Service members with their post-military disability process
and transition resources and services. The costs to VSOs and MSOs would
be any costs associated with salaries for paid VSO and MSO personnel.
These organizations will pay for any costs associated with travel to
and from military installations, as well as any materials they provide
to separating Service members and their spouses. Costs to employers and
community organizations supporting transition-related events and
activities would be similar to those for VSOs and MSOs.
The DoD is dependent upon other federal agencies to deliver the
redesigned TAP to transitioning Service members. The VA, DOL, SBA,
Department of Education (ED), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
have proven to be invaluable partners in supporting the Transition GPS
curriculum development and delivery, and in providing follow-on
services required by a warm handover due to unmet CRS. These
interagency partners strongly support TAP governance and performance
measurement.
Although DoD cannot estimate the costs for its interagency
partners, TAP provides the Service members with resources through the
contributions of its interagency partners that should be identified as
factors of total program cost. Transition assistance is a comprehensive
interagency effort with contributions from every partner leveraged to
provide support to the All-Volunteer Force as the Service members
prepare to become Veterans. The interagency partners deliver the
Transition GPS curriculum and one-on-one services across 206 military
installations across the globe. DoD can only speak to TAP costs within
the Defense fence line, but can discuss the value provided by
interagency partners.
The DOL provides skilled facilitators that deliver the DOLEW, a
mandatory element of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum. DOL's
American Jobs Centers (AJCs) provide integral employment support to
transitioning Service members and transitioned Veterans. The AJCs are
identified as resources for the Service members during TAP which may
increase visits from the informed Service members. The AJCs also
support warm handovers of Service members who have identified
employment as a transition goal on their ITP but do not meet the CRS
for employment. DOL also provides input to the TAP interagency working
groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection,
performance measurement, and standardization efforts, all of which
represent costs to the organization.
The SBA provides the Transition GPS entrepreneurship track, Boots
to Business, to educate transitioning Service members interested in
starting their own business about the challenges small businesses face.
Upon completing the Boots to Business track, the SBA allows Service
members to access the SBA on-line entrepreneurship course, free of
charge. The SBA then provides Service members the opportunity to be
matched to a successful business person as a mentor. This is a
tremendous commitment that must create additional costs for the SBA.
The SBA offices continue to provide support to Veterans as they pursue
business plan development or start up loans; provision of this support
is in their charter, but the increased awareness provided through the
Transition GPS curriculum is likely to increase the patronage and
represent a cost to SBA. The SBA also provides input to the TAP
interagency working groups and governance boards. The SBA is engaged
with data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes.
VA provides facilitators who deliver the mandatory VA Benefits
Briefings I and II as part of the Transition GPS standardized
curriculum required to meet VOW Act requirements. The VA facilitators
also deliver the two-day track for Career Technical Training that
provides instruction to Service members to discern the best choices of
career technical training institutions, financial aid, best use of the
Post 9/11 GI Bill, etc. Benefits counselors deliver one-on-one benefits
counseling on installations, as space permits. As a primary resource
for Veterans, VA ensures benefits counselors are able to accept warm
handovers of transitioning Service members who do not meet CRS and
require VA assistance post separation. The VA hosts the interagency
single web portal for connectivity between employers and transitioning
Service members, Veterans and military spouses the Veterans Employment
Center (VEC). VA provides input to the TAP interagency working groups
and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection and
sharing efforts to determine program outcomes, all of which represent
costs to the organization.
ED serves a unique and highly valued role in the interagency
partnership by ensuring the entire curriculum, both in classroom and
virtual platform delivery, is based on adult learning principles. Their
consultative role, tapped daily by the interagency partners, is
critical to a quality TAP. ED also provides input to the TAP
interagency working groups and governance boards and keeps a keen eye
toward meaningful TAP outcomes, all of which represent costs to the
organization.
The OPM contributes federal employment information and resources to
the DOLEW, and enables the connectivity between the VEC and USA Jobs
Web sites. The OPM also provides input to the TAP interagency working
[[Page 77749]]
groups and governance boards and contributes to performance measures.
The costs to DoD's interagency partners were not calculated;
implementation of this rule was mandated by the Vow Act and costs for
all parties are already incurred. The calculated costs to DoD and
unmeasured costs to DoD's interagency partners provide significant
resources to Service members resulting in benefits to the Nation.
The benefits of the redesigned TAP to the Service members are
increased career readiness to obtain employment, start their own
business or enter career technical training or an institution of higher
learning at the point of separation from military service. The legacy,
end-of-career TAP is replaced by pre-determined opportunities across
the MLC for many transition-related activities to be completed during
the normal course of business.
Since a direct economic estimate of the value of TAP is difficult
for DoD to demonstrate as it would require collection of information
from military personnel after they become private citizens, the value
of the TAP can be derived by demonstrating qualitatively how Service
members value the program and then displaying some changes in economic
variables that can be differentiated between Veterans who have access
to TAP and non-Veterans who do not have access to the program.
--According to one independent evaluation of the TAP, Service members
who had participated in the TAP had, on average, found their first
post-military job three weeks sooner than those who did not participate
in the TAP.
--An independent survey asked Soldiers who had used the TAP their
opinions about the curriculum. The Soldiers reported positive opinions
about the usefulness of the TAP.
90% of the Soldiers felt that it was a useful resource in searching
for employment and 88% of them would recommend the TAP to a colleague.
According to a curriculum assessment completed at the end of each
TAP module, transitioning Service members gave the TAP positive reviews
on its usefulness for their job search:
--92% of reported that they found the learning resources useful,
including notes, handouts, and audio-visuals.
--83% reported that the modules enhanced their confidence in their own
transition planning.
--81% reported that they now know how to access the necessary resources
to find answers to transition questions that may arise in the next
several months.
--79% said that the TAP was beneficial in helping them gain the
information and skills they needed better to plan their transition.
--79% said that they will use what they learned from the TAP in their
own transition planning.
--A comparison of unemployment insurance usage suggests that recently
separated members of the military (2013 & 2014) were more likely to
apply what they learned in the re-designed TAP and were more involved
earlier in job training programs than unemployed claimants who did not
have military experience (8.5% of UCX claimants versus 5.1% of Military
service claimants).
--According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate
for Veterans of the current conflict declined by 1.8 percentage points
from August 2013 to August 2014 coinciding with the time period when
all Service members were required to take the re-designed TAP.
The TAP also helps mitigate the adjustment costs associated with
labor market transition. Military members must prepare for the
adjustments associated with losing military benefits (e.g. housing,
health care, child care) to the benefits afforded in private sector or
nonmilitary public sector jobs. The TAP addresses this very important
aspect based on a regulatory mandate that they attend both the DOLEW
and the VA's Veterans Benefits Briefings, and complete a 12 month post-
separation financial plan to meet CRS.
The early alignment of military skills with civilian workforce
demands and deliberate planning for transition throughout a Service
member's career sets the stage for a well-timed flow of Service members
to our Nation's labor force. Employers state that transitioning Service
members have critical job-related skills, competencies, and qualities
including the ability to learn new skills, strong leadership qualities,
and flexibility to work well in teams or independently, ability to set
and achieve goals, recognition of problems and implementation of
solutions, and ability to persevere in the face of obstacles. However,
application of these skills and attributes must be translated into
employer friendly language. These issues are addressed by the TAP. The
rule supports providing private and public sector employers with a
direct link to profiles and resumes of separating Service members
through the Veterans Employment Center (VEC), where employers can
recruit from this talent pipeline.
The rule benefits communities across the country. Civilian
communities receive more educated, better trained and more prepared
citizens when separating Service members return to communities as
Veterans. Service members learn to align their military skills with
civilian employment opportunities, which enables the pool of highly
trained, adaptable, transitioning Service members a more timely
integration into the civilian workforce and local economies.
Service members also learn through TAP about the rich suite of
resources available to them from the interagency partners and have, for
the asking, one-on-one appointments with interagency partner staff, who
can provide assistance to Service members and their families both
before and after the Service member leaves active duty. More
specifically, the components of the mandatory CRS target deliberate
planning for financial preparedness as well as employment, education,
housing and transportation plans and, for those Service members with
families, child care, schools, and spouse employment. The DoD and
interagency partners incorporated the warm handover requirement for any
transitioning Service member who does not meet the CRS. The warm
handover is meant to serve as an immediate bridge from DoD to the
federal partners' staffs, which are committed to providing needed
support, resources and services to Service members post separation in
the communities to which the Service members are returning. The
intention is to provide early intervention before Veterans encounter
the challenges currently identified by some communities, e.g.,
financial struggles, unemployment, lack of social supports that can
spiral down into homelessness, risk taking behaviors, etc. Families and
communities benefit.
Risks: If this rule is not put into effect, approximately 200,000
Service members per year will return to their local communities ill
prepared to assimilate into the civilian workforce, effectively use the
Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits and other VA benefits that they have earned,
minimize risks to starting small businesses, and will be unaware of
community resources to assist them with their reintegration. More
specifically, transitioning Service members will be uninformed as to
how to best use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit--how to apply to a
degree completion institution, how to choose the best school for degree
completion, or how to choose a technical training program that leads to
obtaining a credential--with a negative return on
[[Page 77750]]
their investment such as non-graduation, inability to transfer credits,
or falling victim to predatory institutions, with an end result of
wasting valuable taxpayer dollars. Service members, a most
entrepreneurial population, would be poorly prepared to launch small
businesses successfully, becoming part of the > 80% statistic of failed
start-ups within the first year. Service members will be unprepared to
capitalize upon health care benefits due to them, as well as health
care mandated by and available through the Affordable Care Act. These
avoidable information, education and training gaps could produce
negative outcomes such as increased unemployment, financial
uncertainty, business bankruptcy, family disruption, and even a
possible increase in homelessness. These risks would be felt by local
communities to which transitioning Service members return as
communities deal with the long term economic and social fallout.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1332.35, ``Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel.''
Agency Contact: Mr. Ronald L. Horne, Director of Policy and
Programs, DoD Transition to Veterans Program Office, Department of
Defense, Office of the Secretary, 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1410,
Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: 703 614-8631, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0790-AJ17
DOD--OS
18. Department of Defense (DOD)--Defense Industrial Base (DIB)
Cybersecurity (CS) Activities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 391; 10 U.S.C. 2224; 44 U.S.C. 3506; 44
U.S.C. 3544; and sec 941; Pub. L. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is revising its DoD-DIB Cybersecurity (CS) Activities
regulation to mandate reporting of cyber incidents that result in an
actual or potentially adverse effect on a covered contractor
information system or covered defense information residing therein, or
on a contractor's ability to provide operationally critical support,
and modify eligibility criteria to permit greater participation in the
voluntary DoD-Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS)
information sharing program.
Statement of Need: This rule complies with statutory guidance under
section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013, and section 391 of Title 10, United States Code
(U.S.C.), requiring defense contractors to rapidly report cyber
incidents on their unclassified networks or information systems that
may affect unclassified defense information, or that affect their
ability to provide operationally critical support to the Department.
This rule underscores the importance of better protecting unclassified
defense information against the immediate cyber threat, while
preserving the intellectual property and competitive capabilities of
our national defense industrial base. The rule enables DoD to better
assess, in the near term, when mission critical capabilities and
services are affected by cyber incidents and reinforces DoD's overall
efforts to defend DoD information, protect U.S. national interests
against cyber-attacks, and support military operations and contingency
plans worldwide. Cybersecurity is a Congressional priority and this
rule supports the Administration's national cybersecurity strategy
emphasizing public-private information sharing.
Summary of Legal Basis: The activities in this rule implement DoD
statutory authorities to establish programs and activities to protect
sensitive DoD information, including when such information resides on
or transits information systems operated by contractors or others in
support of DoD activities (e.g., 10 U.S.C. 391 and 2224, the Federal
Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), codified at 44 U.S.C.
3551 et seq., section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239)).
Activities under this rule also fulfill important elements of DoD's
critical infrastructure protection responsibilities, as the sector
specific agency for the DIB sector (see Presidential Policy Directive
21 (PPD-21), Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil).
Alternatives: None. This is revision to an existing regulation (32
CFR part 236).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Under this rule, contractors will
incur costs associated with requirements for reporting cyber incidents
of covered defense information on their covered contractor information
system(s) or those affecting the contractor's ability to provide
operationally critical support. Costs for contractors include
identifying and analyzing cyber incidents and their impact on covered
defense information, or a contractor's ability to provide operationally
critical support, as well as obtaining DoD-approved medium assurance
certificates to ensure authentication and identification when reporting
cyber incidents to DoD. Government costs include onboarding new
companies under the voluntary DoD-DIB CS information sharing program,
and collecting and analyzing cyber incident reports, malicious
software, and media.
Risks: Cyber threats to DIB unclassified information systems
represent an unacceptable risk of compromise of DoD information and
mission and pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security and
economic security interests. The combination of the mandatory DoD
contractor cyber incident reporting, combined with the voluntary
participation in the DIB CS program, will enhance and supplement DoD
contractor capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on,
or transits, DoD contractor unclassified network or information
systems.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 10/02/15 80 FR 59581
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 10/02/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 12/01/15
End.
Final Action........................ 08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Vicki Michetti, Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary, 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-6000, Phone:
703 604-3177, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0790-AJ29
[[Page 77751]]
DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)
Proposed Rule Stage
19. Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 112-81, sec 818; Pub. L.
113-291, sec 817
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 202; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 246; 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing a proposed
rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to further implement section 818 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, as modified by
section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015, which requires DoD to issue
regulations establishing requirements that DoD and DoD contractors and
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, shall acquire
electronic parts from trusted suppliers in order to further address the
avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. On May 6, 2014, DoD
published a final rule under DFARS Case 2012-D055, entitled Detection
and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (78 FR 26092). That final
rule constituted the initial partial implementation of section 818.
Revisions to this rule will be reported in future status updates as
part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563, completed
in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.
Statement of Need: DoD is required to implement in the DFARS the
requirement for defense contractors and subcontractors, whenever
possible, to acquire electronic parts from trusted suppliers, in order
to avoid acquisition of counterfeit electronic parts.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the
authorities of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as
modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).
Alternatives: No viable alternatives were identified, as this rule
implements section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section
817 of the NDAA for FY 2015.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost benefits or burdens associated
with this rule are not available. The law requires DoD to issue
regulations establishing requirements that DoD and DoD contractors and
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, shall acquire
electronic parts from trusted suppliers in order to further address the
avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. DoD contractors and
subcontractors that are not the original component manufacturer are
required by the rule to notify the contracting officer if it is not
possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier. For
those instances where the contractor obtains electronic parts from
sources other than a trusted supplier, the contractor is responsible
for inspection, test, and authentication in accordance with existing
applicable industry standards. Such validation of new parts and new
suppliers are steps that a prudent contractor would take
notwithstanding this rule. The additional burden imposed is the
notification requirement, which should have a minimal cost impact. The
rule applies only to contractors subject to the Cost Accounting
Standards. This rule enhances DoD's ability to strengthen the integrity
of the process for acquisition of electronic parts and benefits both
the Government and contractors.
Risks: Failure to implement this rule may cause harm to the
Government by resulting in the acquisition of counterfeit electronic
parts which could directly impact national security.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/00/16
Final Action........................ 09/00/16
Final Action Effective.............. 09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0750-AH89
RIN: 0750-AI58
DOD--DARC
Final Rule Stage
20. Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud
Services (DFARS Case 2013-D018)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1707; Pub. L. 112-239,
sec 941; Pub. L. 113-291, sec 1632
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 202; 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 239; 48
CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing an interim
rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement section 941 of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for
FY 2015, both of which require contractor reporting on network
penetrations. Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to
report penetrations of networks and information systems and allows DoD
personnel access to equipment and information to assess the impact of
reported penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor
designated as operationally critical must report each time a cyber-
incident occurs on that contractor's network or information systems.
The rule requires contractors and subcontractors to report cyber
incidents that result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on a
covered contractor information system or covered defense information
residing therein, or on a contractor's ability to provide operationally
critical support. This rule also implements policy on the purchase of
cloud computing services. The revisions to this rule will be reported
in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under
Executive Order 13563, completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be
accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-
0036.
Statement of Need: DoD is required to implement in the DFARS a
requirement for contractors to report network penetrations.
Additionally, the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) released a Cloud
Computing Security Requirements Guide on January 13, 2015, which cloud
service providers must comply with when providing cloud services to
DoD.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is required under the authorities
of section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) and section
1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).
Alternatives: No viable alternatives were identified, as this rule
implements section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 1632 of the
NDAA for FY 2015, as well as the guidance established by the DoD CIO on
security requirements for cloud computing.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost benefits or burdens associated
with this rule are not available. The objective of
[[Page 77752]]
the rule is to improve information security for DoD information stored
on or transiting through contractor systems as well as in a cloud
environment. The rule will reduce the vulnerability of DoD information
via attacks on its systems and networks and those of DoD contractors.
This rule improves national security benefiting both the Government and
contractors. This rule is likely to have a cost impact on all
contractors that have covered defense information on their information
systems. The cost impact of the rule will vary in relation to the
capabilities of each affected contractor to adapt their systems to meet
the new security controls. The benefits of the rule would be the
potential decrease in the loss or compromise of covered defense
information; however, this benefit across DoD is not susceptible to
being quantified or measured. Ultimately, DoD anticipates significant
savings to taxpayers by improving information security for DoD
information that resides in or transits through contractor systems and
a cloud environment.
Risks: Recent high-profile breaches of Federal information show the
need to ensure that information security protections are clearly,
effectively, and consistently addressed in contracts. Failure to
implement this rule may cause harm to the Government through the
compromise of covered defense information or other Government data, or
the loss of operationally critical support capabilities, which could
directly impact national security.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 08/26/15 80 FR 51739
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/26/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 10/26/15
End.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 10/22/15 80 FR 63928
Extended.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/20/15
Extended End.
Final Action........................ 08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AI61
DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Proposed Rule Stage
21. TRICARE: Mental Health and Substance Use
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1073
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes revisions to the TRICARE regulation to
reduce administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit
coverage and to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD)
treatment for TRICARE beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department
of Defense and Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards
of practice in mental health and addition medicine, and governing laws.
This proposed rule has four main objectives: (1) To eliminate of
quantitative and qualitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental
health benefit coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental
health and SUD benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical
benefits; (2) to expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under
TRICARE, to include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and
treatment of opioid dependence; (3) to streamline the requirements for
institutional providers to become TRICARE authorized providers; and (4)
to develop TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized
mental health and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid
treatment programs.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to comply with the
statutory provisions in section 703 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2015 which removed TRICARE statutory day
limitations on inpatient mental health services. It is also necessary
to adopt the four main objectives listed above. In general, the DoD,
pursuant to chapter 55 of title 10 U.S.C., covers health care,
including mental health care, services and supplies, which are
medically or psychologically necessary to prevent, diagnose, and/or
treat a mental or physical illness, injury, or bodily malfunction. In
1996, Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA 1996)
which required employment-related health insurance coverage offered in
connection with group health plans to provide parity in aggregate
lifetime and annual dollar limits for mental health benefits and
medical and surgical benefits. In October 2008, the Mental Health
Parity and Addictions Equity Act (MHPAEA) was signed into law as part
of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The changes made
by MHPAEA consists of new standards, including parity for substance use
disorder benefits, as well as amendments to the existing mental health
parity provisions exacted in MHPA. This law requires group health
insurance plans that provide both medical/surgical and mental health
benefits to provide those benefits at parity. Specifically, financial
requirements (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, or coinsurance) and
treatment limitations (e.g., days of coverage and number of visits)
cannot be more restrictive for mental health benefits than they are for
medical/surgical benefits. The MHPAEA was amended by the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and
Reconciliation Act of 2010, to also apply to individual health
insurance coverage. TRICARE is not a group health plan subject to the
MHPA 1996, the MHPAEA of 2008, or the Health Care and Reconciliation
Act. However, the provisions of these acts serve as a model for TRICARE
in proposing changes to existing benefit coverage so as to reduce
administrative barriers to treatment and increase access to medically
or psychologically necessary mental health care consistent with TRICARE
statutory authority.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the
authorities of 10 U.S.C., section 1073, which authorizes the Secretary
of Defense to administer the medical and dental benefits provided in
chapter 55 of title 10 U.S.C. The Department is authorized to provide
medically necessary and appropriate medical care for mental and
physical illnesses, injuries and bodily malfunctions, including
hospitalization, outpatient care, drugs, and treatment of mental
conditions under 10 U.S.C. 1077(a)(1)-(3) and (5). Although section
1077 identifies the types of health care to be provided in military
treatment facilities, these types of health care are incorporated by
reference as the types of health care benefits authorized for coverage
within the civilian health care sector for active duty family members
and retirees and their dependents through sections 1079 and 1086,
respectively. In general, the scope of TRICARE benefits covered within
the civilian health care sector and the TRICARE authorized providers of
those benefits are found at 32 CFR part 199.4
[[Page 77753]]
and 199.6, respectively. Reimbursement is addressed in 32 CFR 199.14.
Alternatives: To the extent this rule implements statutorily
required provisions, no alternatives are applicable. Further, any
alternative that fails to address administrative barriers to mental
health and SUD treatment and increasing access to medically or
psychologically necessary mental health care consistent with TRICARE
statutory authority is inconsistent with principles of mental health
parity and ignores well-validated evidence and current standards of
practice in mental health and SUD treatment.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is not anticipated to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Thus,
economically, it is not a substantive, significant rule under the
Executive Order and the Congressional Review Act. All services and
supplies authorized under the TRICARE Basic Program must be determined
to be medically necessary in the treatment of an illness, injury or
bodily malfunction before the care can be cost shared by TRICARE. For
this reason, DoD anticipates that TRICARE will have a marginal increase
in cost associated with increased access to authorized mental health
and SUD treatment within the TRICARE Basic Program. Failure to prevent
or treat these conditions results in severe and widespread
consequences, including increased risk of suicide and exacerbation of
mental and physical health disorders. Short-term treatments usually are
followed by relapses. These proposed revisions will increase access to
mental health and SUD treatment, including long-term outpatient care
and other systemic supports, resulting in more comprehensive care and
hopefully a greater incentive for beneficiaries to seek the care they
need.
Risks: This proposed rule implements statutorily required
provisions for adoption and implementation. No risk to the public is
applicable as this proposed rule expands access to care, and
streamlines requirements for TRICARE authorized provider approval.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Patricia Moseley, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington,
DC 22301, Phone: 703 681-0064.
RIN: 0720-AB65
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
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 and other services nationwide in order to ensure
that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-
quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We
provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and
related services at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and
individuals, including State educational and other agencies, local
school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and
secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and
technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students,
members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are
helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten
through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary
education or employment, and that students attending postsecondary
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
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 innovative programs,
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the
dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the
quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department
administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life.
Indeed, in the 2015-2016 school year, about 55 million students will
attend an estimated 130,000 elementary and secondary schools in
approximately 13,500 districts, and about 21 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 monitoring 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 families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal
governments; other Federal agencies; and neighborhood groups,
community-based early learning programs, elementary and secondary
schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, adult education
providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations,
businesses, and labor organizations.
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. We also continue to seek
greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the
use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new
technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the
Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single
Government-wide 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 with the opportunity to submit comments 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. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
We are working with Congress to reauthorize the ESEA. As we do so,
we continue to provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law
for States that are embracing reform. The mechanisms we are using will
ensure continued accountability and commitment to high-quality
education for all students while providing States with increased
flexibility to implement State and local reforms to improve student
achievement. The ESEA, when enacted, will likely require the Department
to promulgate conforming regulations.
[[Page 77754]]
B. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA replaced the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), including the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA), and amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act). WIOA promotes the
integration of the workforce development system's six ``core
programs'', including AEFLA and the vocational rehabilitation program
under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, into the revamped workforce
development system under Title I of WIOA. The Department issued four
NPRMs in April, 2015, one joint rule with the Department of Labor (DOL)
and three ED-specific packages. We plan to issue final rules for each
of the four packages in April, 2016.
C. Borrower Defense Issues
In August 2015, the Department announced its intent to convene a
committee to develop proposed regulations for determining which acts or
omissions of an institution of higher education (``institution'') a
borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan) Program
(``borrower defenses'') and the consequences of such borrower defenses
for borrowers, institutions, and the Secretary. Specifically, the
Department intends to address: (1) The procedures to be used for a
borrower to establish a defense to repayment; (2) the criteria that the
Department will use to identify acts or omissions of an institution
that constitute defenses to repayment of Federal Direct Loans to the
Secretary; (3) the standards and procedures that the Department will
use to determine the liability of the institution participating in the
Federal Direct Loan Program for amounts based on borrower defenses; and
(4) the effect of borrower defenses on institutional capability
assessments. The Department is holding public hearings for interested
parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda during September 2015, and
anticipates that any committee established after the public hearings
will begin negotiations in January 2016.
D. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
The Higher Education Act expired at the end of 2013, and its
reauthorization, when enacted, will likely require the Department to
promulgate conforming regulations. In the meantime, we are continuing
to work on several regulatory activities under the Title IV Federal
Student Aid programs to improve protections for students and safeguard
Federal dollars invested in postsecondary education.
IV. Principles for Regulating
Over the next year, we may need to issue other regulations because
of new legislation or programmatic changes. In doing so, we will follow
the Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will
regulate. Through consistent application of those 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
similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be
meaningful and do more good than harm.
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 regulating.
To the extent possible, establish performance objectives
rather than specify compliance behavior.
Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as
needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)
Final Rule Stage
22. Repaye
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1078; 20 U.S.C. 1087e
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 682.202; 34 CFR 685.202; 34 CFR 685.208; 34
CFR 685.209.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On June 9, 2014, the President issued a memorandum (79 FR
33843) directing the Secretary to propose regulations by June 9, 2015,
that will allow additional students who borrowed Federal Direct Loans
to cap their Federal student loan payments at 10 percent of their
income. The memorandum further directed the Secretary to issue final
regulations after considering all public comments with the goal of
making the repayment option available to borrowers by December 31,
2015.
Statement of Need: The President has issued a memorandum directing
the Secretary to propose regulations by June 9, 2015, that will allow
additional student borrowers Federal Direct Loans to cap their Federal
student loan payments at 10 percent of their income. The memorandum
further directed the Secretary to issue final regulations after
considering all public comments with the goal of making the repayment
option available to borrowers by December 31, 2015.
In addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking will propose the
establishment of procedures for Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)
Program loan holders to use the Department of Defense's Defense
Manpower Data Center (DDMC) database to identify U.S. military
servicemembers who may be eligible for a lower rate on their FFEL
Program loans under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
Summary of Legal Basis: The President directed the Secretary to
propose regulations that will allow additional student borrowers
Federal Direct Loans to cap their Federal student loan payments at 10
percent of their income.
These final regulations will amend the Student Assistance General
Provisions regulations governing Direct Loan cohort default rates
(CDRs) to expand the circumstances under which an institution may
challenge or appeal the potential consequences of a draft or final CDR
based on the institution's participation rate index (PRI).
[[Page 77755]]
Alternatives: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the final
regulations.
Risks: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Establish 09/03/14 79 FR 52273
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
NPRM................................ 07/09/15 80 FR 39608
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/10/15
Final Action........................ 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Barbara Hoblitzell, Department of Education, Office
of Postsecondary Education, Room 8019, 1990 K Street NW., Washington,
DC 20006, Phone: 202 502-7649, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD18
ED--OFFICE OF CAREER, TECHNICAL, AND ADULT EDUCATION (OCTAE)
Final Rule Stage
23. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-128; 29 U.S.C. 3101
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 361; 34 CFR 463.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 22, 2016.
Abstract: The Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) are
implementing, through final regulations, jointly-administered
activities authorized by title I of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). Through these regulations,
the Departments will implement job training system reforms and
strengthen the nation's workforce development system to put Americans
back to work and make the United States more competitive in the 21st
century. This joint rule provides guidance for State and local
workforce development systems that increase the skill and credential
attainment, employment, retention, and earnings of participants,
especially those with significant barriers to employment, thereby
improving the quality of the workforce, reducing welfare dependency,
and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the nation.
WIOA strengthened the alignment of the workforce development
system's six core programs by imposing unified strategic planning
requirements, common performance accountability measures, and
requirements governing the one-stop delivery system. In so doing, WIOA
placed heightened emphasis on coordination and collaboration at the
Federal, State, and local levels to ensure a streamlined and
coordinated service delivery system for job seekers, including those
with disabilities, and employers. To that end, ED and DOL are issuing
final regulations to implement jointly-administered activities under
title I of WIOA. These regulations lay the foundation, through
coordination and collaboration at the Federal level, for implementing
the vision and goals of WIOA.
Statement of Need: WIOA mandates that the Department issue final
regulations by January 2016.
Summary of Legal Basis: WIOA mandates that the Department issue
final regulations by January 2016.
Alternatives: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the final
regulations.
Risks: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/16/15 80 FR 20573
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/15/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mary Louise Dirrigl, Department of Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Room 5156, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 245-7324, Email:
[email protected].
Cheryl Keenan, Department of Education, Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education, Room 11-151, PCP, 550 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 245-7810, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1830-AA21
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
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; and
Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic
competitiveness, and improve 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.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), several regulations
have been identified as associated with retrospective review and
analysis in the Department's retrospective review of regulations plan.
Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not
appear in the Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found
about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified
Agenda on www.Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section. These
rulemakings can also be found on www.Regulations.gov. The final agency
plan can be found at
[[Page 77756]]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/departmentofenergyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf.
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 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.
Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits
In 2014, the Department published final rules that adopted new or
amended energy conservation standards for ten different products,
including furnace fans, motors, commercial refrigeration equipment,
metal halide lamp fixtures, external power supplies, commercial clothes
washers; general service fluorescent lamps, and automatic commercial
ice makers. The ten standards finalized in 2014 are estimated to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions by over 400 million metric tons and save
American families and businesses $78 billion in electricity bills
through 2030.
Since 2009, the Energy Department has finalized new efficiency
standards for more than 30 household and commercial products, including
dishwashers, refrigerators and water heaters, which are estimated to
save consumers several hundred billion dollars through 2030. To build
on this momentum, the Department is committed to continuing to
establish new efficiency standards that--when combined with the
progress already made through previously finalized standards--will
reduce carbon pollution by approximately 3 billion metric tons in total
by 2030, equal to more than a year's carbon pollution from the entire
U.S. electricity system.
As part of the President's Climate Action Plan, the Energy
Department has committed to an ambitious goal of finalizing at least 20
additional energy efficiency standards by the end of 2016. The overall
plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the Report to
Congress pursuant to section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released on
January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2015 report
to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and the Energy
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015. The reports to Congress are posted
at: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/reports-and-publications. While
each of these high priority rules will build on the progress made to
date, and will continue to move the U.S. closer to a low carbon future,
DOE believes that seven rulemakings are the most important of its
significant regulatory actions and, therefore, comprise the
Department's Regulatory Plan. However, because of the current stage of
four of the rulemakings, DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard
levels for these products and cannot provide an estimate of combined
aggregate costs and benefits for this action. DOE will, however, in
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Estimates of energy savings will
be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed rulemakings for
central air conditioners and heat pumps, computers and battery backup
systems, commercial water heaters, and general service fluorescent
lamps. For small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, DOE estimates that energy savings
from electricity will be 11.7 quads over 30 years and the benefit to
the Nation will be between $16.5 billion to $50.8 billion. For non-
weatherized gas furnaces, DOE estimates that energy savings from
electricity will be 2.78 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the
Nation will be between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion. For commercial
and industrial pumps, DOE estimates that the energy savings from
electricity will be 0.28 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the
Nation will be between $0.41 billion and $1.11 billion.
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
24. Coverage Determination for Computers and Battery Backup Systems
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DOE has tentatively determined that computer and battery
backup systems (computer systems) qualify as covered products under
Part A of Title III of EPCA, as amended. DOE has not previously
conducted an energy conservation standard rulemaking for computers
systems. If, after public comment, DOE issues a final determination of
coverage for computer systems, DOE may prescribe both test procedures
and energy conservation standards for computer systems.
Statement of Need: EPCA authorizes DOE to establish minimum energy
efficiency standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment,
including computer systems. EPCA further requires that DOE review such
standards and determine whether to amend them within six years after
promulgation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C.
6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major
household appliances (collectively referred to as covered products). In
addition to specifying a list of covered products, EPCA contains
provisions that enable the Secretary to classify additional types of
consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)). For a
given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must
determine that certain criteria are met. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). For the
Secretary to prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(b)(1), he must also determine that certain additional criteria are
met. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings 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
amended energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of
combined aggregate costs and benefits. DOE will, however, in compliance
with all applicable laws, issue standards that provide for increased
energy efficiency that are economically justified.
[[Page 77757]]
Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice
of proposed rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Proposed Determination.... 02/28/14 79 FR 11345
NOPD Comment Period End............. 03/31/14 .......................
NOPD Comment Period Extended........ 04/03/14 79 FR 18661
NOPD Comment Period Extended End.... 04/15/14 .......................
Framework Document.................. 07/17/14 79 FR 41656
Framework Document Comment Period 09/02/14 .......................
End.
Framework Document Comment Period 08/05/14 79 FR 45377
Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period 10/02/14 .......................
Extended End.
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
Final Determination................. 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/78.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-DET-0035.
Agency Contact: Jeremy Dommu, 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-AD04
DOE--EE
25. Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and (B)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2017.
Abstract: Amendments to Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 direct DOE to
conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy conservation standards
for GSLs, the first of which must be initiated no later than January 1,
2014. EPCA specifically states that the scope of the rulemaking is not
limited to incandescent lamp technologies. EPCA also states that DOE
must consider in the first rulemaking cycle the minimum backstop
requirement of 45 lumens per watt for general service lamps (GSLs)
effective January 1, 2020. This rulemaking constitutes DOE's first
rulemaking cycle.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act) Public Law 94163 (42 U.S.C.
6291-6309 as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA any new or
amended energy conservation standard that the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) prescribes for certain products such as general service lamps
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) and result in a significant conservation of
energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
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
energy efficiency standards, 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 for
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of
proposed rulemaking action.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework Document Availability; 12/09/13 78 FR 73737
Public Meeting.
Framework Document Comment Period 01/23/14 .......................
End.
Framework Document Comment Period 01/23/14 79 FR 3742
Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period 02/07/14 .......................
Extended End.
Preliminary Analysis; Notice of 12/11/14 79 FR 73503
Public Meeting; Date 01/20/15.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period 02/09/15 .......................
End.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period 01/30/15 80 FR 5052
Extended.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period 02/23/15 .......................
Extended End.
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=83.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0051.
Agency Contact: Lucy DeButts, Office of Buildings Technologies
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
287-1604, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD09
DOE--EE
26. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-Weatherized Gas
Furnaces
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(e); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
[[Page 77758]]
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 24, 2015. Final, Judicial,
April 24, 2016, One year after issuance of the proposed rule.
Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including
residential furnaces. EPCA also requires the DOE to periodically
determine whether more-stringent amended standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would save a
significant amount of energy. DOE is amending its energy conservation
standards for residential non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home
gas furnaces in partial fulfillment of a court-ordered remand of DOE's
2011 rulemaking for these products.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
residential furnaces.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as
residential furnaces, shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) and result in a
significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
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
energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in
compliance with all applicable laws, issue standards that provide for
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Meeting............ 10/30/14 79 FR 64517
NPRM and Public Meeting Date 03/27/ 03/12/15 80 FR 13120
15.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/20/15 80 FR 28851
NPRM Extended Comment Period End.... 07/10/15 .......................
Notice of Data Availability (NODA).. 09/14/15 80 FR 55038
NODA Comment Period End............. 10/14/15 .......................
NODA Comment Period Reopened........ 10/23/15 80 FR 64370
NODA Comment Period Reopened End.... 11/06/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/72.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0031.
Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
287-1692, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD20
DOE--EE
27. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating
Equipment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 412 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i) and (vi)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 31, 2013, Either proposed
rule or determination not to amend standards.
Abstract: Once completed, this rulemaking will fulfill DOE's
statutory obligation to either propose amended energy conservation
standards for commercial water heaters, hot water supply boilers, and
unfired hot water storage tanks or determine that the existing
standards do not need to be amended. DOE must determine whether
national standards more stringent than those that are currently in
place would result in a significant additional amount of energy savings
and whether such amended national standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
commercial water heating equipment. EPCA further requires that DOE
review such standards and determine whether to amend them within six
years after promulgation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law
94163, (42 U.S.C. 62916309, as codified) sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program
covering commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial
water heating (CWH) equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K)).
EPCA requires DOE to evaluate and consider amending its energy
conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial equipment
(i.e., specified heating, air-conditioning, and water heating
equipment) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated with respect to
such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A), for CWH equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard
90.1 is amended, DOE must publish in the Federal Register an analysis
of the energy savings potential of amended energy conservation
standards within 180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that DOE must adopt
amended standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that
adoption of a more-stringent level would produce significant additional
energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a
national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18
months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 77759]]
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more-stringent standard
is appropriate under the statutory criteria, DOE must establish such
more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of
the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)).
In addition, EPCA requires DOE to periodically review its already-
established energy conservation standards for covered ASHRAE equipment
and publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking with amended
standards or a determination that the standards do not need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE's periodic review of ASHRAE
equipment must occur [e]very six years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
EPCA also specifies that any amendments to the design requirements with
respect to the ASHRAE equipment would trigger DOE review of the
potential energy savings under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). EPCA also
requires DOE to initiate a rulemaking to consider amending the energy
conservation standards for any covered equipment for which more than 6
years has elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule
establishing or amending a standard for the product as of December 18,
2012, in which case DOE must publish either: (1) A notice of
determination that the current standards do not need to be amended, or
(2) a notice of proposed rulemaking containing proposed standards. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rule makings 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
amended energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of
combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will,
however, in compliance with all applicable laws, issue standards that
provide for increased energy efficiency that are economically
justified. Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information............. 10/21/14 79 FR 62899
RFI Comment Period End.............. 11/20/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information:www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/51.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0042.
Agency Contact: Ashley Armstrong, General Engineer, EE-5B,
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-6590,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD34
DOE--EE
28. Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 6, 2017, Final rule or final
determination.
Abstract: DOE must determine whether to amend the current energy
conservation standards for residential central air conditioner and heat
pump products. According to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's
six-year review requirement (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)), DOE must publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking to propose new standards for residential
central air conditioner and heat pump products, or a notice of
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended, by
June 6, 2017. This rulemaking is to determine whether amended standards
for residential central air conditioner and heat pump products would
result in a significant amount of additional energy savings, and
whether those standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. On July 14, 2015, DOE announced its intention
to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group to negotiate
proposed federal standards for the energy efficiency requirements of
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
residential central air conditioner and heat pump products. EPCA
further requires that DOE review such standards and determine whether
to amend them six years after promulgation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94163, (42
U.S.C. 62916309, as codified) sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency and established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a
program covering major household appliances (collectively referred to
as ``covered products''), including residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps that are the subject of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3)) Further, EPCA requires that, not later than six
years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice of
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rule makings 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
amended energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of
combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will,
however, in compliance with all applicable laws, issue standards that
provide for increased energy efficiency that are economically
justified. Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information............. 11/05/14 79 FR 65603
[[Page 77760]]
RFI Comment Period End.............. 12/05/14 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting of Working 07/14/15 80 FR 40938
Group.
NODA Provisional Analysis Tools..... 08/28/15 80 FR 52206
Notice of Public Meeting............ 09/10/15 80 FR 54444
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
NODA Comment Period End............. 12/31/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=104.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0048.
Agency Contact: Ashley Armstrong, General Engineer, EE-5B,
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-6590,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD37
DOE--EE
Final Rule Stage
29. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps
Priority: Economically Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPCA, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to determine
whether establishing energy conservation standards for commercial and
industrial pumps is technically feasible and economically justified and
would save a significant amount of energy. On June 13, 2013, DOE
published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
working group for the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking under
the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
(ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal
standards for the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial pumps
(78 FR 44036). The purpose of the working group was to discuss and, if
possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the energy efficiency
of commercial and industrial pumps. The working group negotiated
standard levels that were accepted by ASRAC on July 7, 2014. As a
result, DOE has proposed to adopt the working groups' recommendations.
Statement of Need: EPCA authorizes DOE to establish minimum energy
efficiency standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment,
including Commercial and Industrial Pumps.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-
163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy Conservation Program
Certain Industrial Equipment. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain equipment,
such as commercial and industrial pumps, shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
Alternatives: EPCA requires DOE, in conducting a rulemaking to
consider standards for commercial and industrial equipment, including
pumps, to establish standards that 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 finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Commercial and Industrial
Pumps (such as energy savings, consumer average lifecycle cost savings,
an increase in national net present value, and emission reductions)
outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net present value). DOE
estimates that energy savings from electricity will be 0.28 quads over
30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between $0.41 billion to
$1.11 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information............. 06/13/11 76 FR 34192
Availability of Framework Document.. 02/01/13 78 FR 7304
NPRM................................ 04/02/15 80 FR 17826
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/01/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0031.
Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
287-1692, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC54
DOE--EE
30. Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large
Commercial Package A/C and Heating Equipment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 31, 2013, Either proposed
rule or determination.
Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended, requires DOE to periodically review its standards for small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating
equipment (which includes commercial unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps--or CUACs). Under recent amendments to EPCA made by the American
Efficient Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 2012 Pub. L. 112-
210 (Dec. 18, 2012), DOE must review its standards for this equipment
every six years and determine whether they need amending. It also
requires that, for those equipment types for which more than six years
have elapsed since the most recent final rules establishing or amending
a standard for that equipment, DOE must publish a proposal to amend the
applicable standard. More than six years has elapsed since the
standards for this
[[Page 77761]]
equipment were last amended. After reviewing these standards and the
available data, DOE has determined that amending the current energy
conservation standards for this equipment would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. Accordingly, DOE proposed amending
the current standards for this equipment. On April 1, 2015, DOE
published a notice announcing that a working group was created to
potentially develop negotiated standards. 80 FR 17363.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package A/C and Heating
Equipment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94163 (42
U.S.C. 62916309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for
certain equipment, such as small, large, and very large air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (also known
as commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps), shall be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). Furthermore, the new or amended standard must
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review and 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 finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Small, Large, and Very
Large Commercial Package A/C and Heating Equipment (such as energy
savings, consumer average lifecycle cost savings, an increase in
national net present value, and emission reductions) outweigh the
burdens (such as loss of industry net present value). DOE estimates
that energy savings from electricity will be 11.7 quads over 30 years
and the benefit to the Nation will be between $16.5 billion to $50.8
billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI); 02/01/13 78 FR 7296
Document Availability.
RFI Comment Period End.............. 03/04/13 .......................
NPRM and Public Meeting............. 09/09/14 79 FR 58948
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/01/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 12/03/14 79 FR 71710
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End.... 12/22/14 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting for Working 05/07/15 80 FR 26199
Group.
Final Action........................ 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/59.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0007.
Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
287-1692, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC95
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2016
As the federal agency with principal responsibility for protecting
the health of all Americans and for providing essential human services,
especially to those most vulnerable, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) implements programs that strengthen the health care
system; advance scientific knowledge and innovation; and improve the
health, safety, and well-being of the American people.
The Department's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 reflect
this complex mission through planned rulemakings structured to
implement the Department's six arcs for implementation of its strategic
plan: Leaving the Department Stronger; Keeping People Healthy and Safe;
Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to Affordable
Quality Care; Leading in Science and Innovation; Delivering High
Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars More Wisely; and,
Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life. This
overview highlights forthcoming rulemakings exemplifying these
priorities.
I. Leaving the Department Stronger
The Department's work to improve the efficiency and accountability
includes its innovation agenda, program integrity and key human
resources initiatives. In particular, the Department plans to issue a
regulation revising administrative appeal procedures for Medicare claim
appeals to increase efficiency in the Medicare claims review and
appeals process. Additionally, consistent with the President's
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
the Department remains committed to reducing regulatory burden on
States, health care providers and suppliers, and other regulated
entities by updating current rules to align them with emerging health
and safety standards, and by eliminating outdated procedural
provisions. A full listing of HHS's retrospective review initiatives
can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/retrospectivereview.
II. Keeping People Healthy and Safe
This HHS strategic priority encompasses the Department's work to
enhance health, wellness and prevention; detect and respond to a
potential disease outbreak or public health emergency; and prevent the
spread of disease across borders. Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity
among children and adolescents has almost tripled. Obesity has both
immediate and long-term effects on the health and quality of life of
those affected, increasing their risk for chronic diseases, including
heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, stroke, and
arthritis--as well as increasing medical costs for the individual and
the health system. Building on the momentum of
[[Page 77762]]
the First Lady's ``Let's Move'' initiative, HHS has mobilized skills
and expertise from across the Department to address this epidemic with
research, public education, and public health strategies. Other
representative regulations include:
Labeling and Nutrition Information
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to issue two final
rules designed to provide more useful, easy to understand dietary
information tools that will help millions of American families identify
healthy choices in the marketplace. These rules, each benefiting from
input received in extended public comment periods, include:
[ssquf] Food Labeling--Nutrition Information: FDA plans a rule,
which, if finalized, revises the nutrition and supplement facts labels
on packaged food, which has not been updated since 1993 (when mandatory
nutrition labeling of food was first required). The aim of the proposed
revision is to provide updated and easier to read nutrition information
on the label to help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices; and
[ssquf] Food Labeling--Serving Sizes: FDA plans a rule, which, if
finalized, requires serving-size information provided within the food
label, providing current nutrition information based on the amount of
food that is typically eaten as a serving, to assist consumers in
maintaining healthy dietary practices.
Food Safety
FDA will maintain HHS's ongoing effort to promulgate rules required
under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), working with public and
private partners to build a new system of food safety oversight.
Recently, FDA finalized its preventive controls in the manufacture and
distribution of human foods and of animal feeds. This additional suite
of regulations, if finalized, constitutes the heart of the FSMA food
safety program by instituting uniform practices for the manufacture and
distribution of food products, to ensure that those products are safe
for consumption and will not cause or spread disease, including,
Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food and Focused Mitigation
Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration.
Preventing Death and Disease From Tobacco Use
In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act, authorizing FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing,
and distribution of tobacco products, to protect the public health and
to reduce tobacco use by minors. Over the next fiscal year, FDA's
planned tobacco regulations include proposing requirements that govern
the methods used in the pre-production design manufacture, packing, and
storage of tobacco products, a proposed rule that would establish a
process for the submission of applications for new tobacco products,
and finalizing the regulation deeming other tobacco products that meet
the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be subject to
the FD&C Act. This final regulation, known as the ``deeming rule,'' is
necessary to afford FDA the authority to regulate additional products
which include hookah, electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco,
other novel tobacco products, and future tobacco products.
Addressing Substance Use Disorders and Opioid Misuse, Abuse, and
Overdose Death Prevention
HHS plans to undertake a number of regulations designed to fight
misuse and abuse of prescription opioids and heroin and encourage
individuals to seek needed treatment for substance use disorders. These
initiatives include an update to the regulation regarding
confidentiality of substance abuse treatment records to align with
advances in health information technology while maintaining appropriate
patient privacy protections. HHS also will undertake an update of the
current regulation around prescribing for buprenorphine to increase
access to this Food and Drug Administration-approved, evidence-based
treatment for opioid dependence and help more people get the treatment
necessary for their recovery.
Drugs and Medical Devices
In 2012, Congress provided new authorities under the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act to support its mission of
safeguarding the quality of medical products available to the public
while ensuring the availability of innovative products. FDA is
implementing this new authority with a focus on protecting the quality
of medical products in the global drug supply chain; improving the
availability of needed drugs and devices; and promoting better-informed
decisions by health professionals and patients. HHS is updating FDA's
regulations to reflect the increased use of generic drugs in the
current marketplace, and will describe approaches for brand name and
generic drug manufacturers to update product labeling. This rule, if
finalized, will revise and clarify procedures for updates to product
labeling to reflect certain types of newly acquired safety information
through submission of a ``changes being effected'' supplement.
III. Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to
Affordable Quality Care
The Affordable Care Act expands access to health insurance through
improvements in Medicaid, the establishment of Affordable Insurance
Exchanges, and coordination between Medicaid, the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and the Exchanges. In implementing the Affordable
Care Act over the next fiscal year, HHS will pursue regulations
transforming the way our nation delivers care. This includes creating
better ways to pay providers, incentivize quality of care and
distribute information to build a health care system that is better,
smarter and healthier with an engaged, educated, and empowered consumer
at the center.
Streamlining Medicaid Eligibility Determinations
A forthcoming final rule will bring to completion regulatory
provisions that support our efforts to assist States in implementing
Medicaid eligibility determinations, appeals, enrollment changes, and
other State health subsidy programs stemming from the Affordable Care
Act. The intent of the rule is to afford each State substantial
discretion in the design and operation of that State's exchange, with
standardization provided only where directed by the Act, or where there
are compelling practical, efficiency or consumer-protection reasons.
Parity for Mental Health Treatment
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires
parity between mental health or substance use disorder benefits and
medical/surgical benefits, with respect to financial requirements and
treatment limitations under group health plans. Finalization of this
rule will implement MHPAEA by proposing standards for Medicaid
alternative benefit plans, Medicaid managed care organizations, and the
Children's Health Insurance Program.
Equitable and Non-Discriminatory Treatment
Finalization of the rule implementing the Affordable Care Act's
Section 1557 nondiscrimination provisions will ensure access to
affordable, quality health care for all Americans--regardless of race,
color, national origin, sex, age and ability.
[[Page 77763]]
IV. Leading in Science and Innovation
HHS continues to expand on early successes of more precise
approaches in a few areas of medicine with the Precision Medicine
Initiative (PMI), and work on 21st Century Cures. In particular, HHS,
in collaboration with the President's Office of Science and Technology
Policy will finalize revisions to existing rules governing research on
human subjects, often referred to as the Common Rule. This rule would
apply to institutions and researchers supported by HHS as well as
researchers throughout much of the federal government who are
conducting research involving human subjects. The proposed revisions
codified in the final rule will aim to better protect human subjects
while facilitating research, and also reducing burden, delay, and
ambiguity for investigators.
V. Delivering High Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars
More Wisely
HHS continues work to build a health care delivery system that
results in better care, smarter spending, and healthier people by
finding better ways to pay providers, deliver care, and distribute
information all while keeping the individual patient at the center. In
the coming fiscal year, the department will complete a number of
regulations to accomplish this strategic objective:
Medicare Payment Rules
Nine Medicare payment rules will be updated to better reflect the
current state of medical practice and to respond to feedback from
providers seeking financial predictability and flexibility to better
serve patients.
Medicaid Managed Care
This final rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care regulations to
reflect changes in the usage of managed care delivery systems. The rule
aligns the rules governing Medicaid managed care with those of other
major sources of coverage, including coverage through Qualified Health
Plans and Medicare Advantage plans, implements statutory provision;
strengthens actuarial soundness payment provisions to promote the
accountability of Medicaid managed care program rates; ensures
appropriate beneficiary protections and enhances expectations for
program integrity. The rule also implements provisions of the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
(CHIPRA) and addresses third party liability for trauma codes.
Improvements to Long-Term Care
This final rule would revise the requirements that long-term care
facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. The changes are necessary to reflect advances in the theory
and practice of service delivery and safety for patients in long-term
care settings. The rule is also an integral part of our efforts to
achieve broad-based improvements both in the quality of health care
furnished through federal programs, and in patient safety, while at the
same time reducing procedural burdens on providers.
VI. Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life
Over the coming year, the Department will continue its support at
critical stages of people's lives, from infancy to old age, and topics
including early learning, Alzheimer's and dementia. A forthcoming rule
from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will provide
the first comprehensive update of Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) regulations since 1998. The CCDF is a federal program that
provides formula grants to States, territories, and tribes. The program
provides financial assistance to low-income families to access child
care so that they can work or attend a job-training or educational
program. It also provides funding to improve the quality of child care
and increase the supply and availability of child care for all
families, including those who receive no direct assistance through
CCDF. Another ACF rule, when finalized, would modify existing Head
Start performance standards to take into account increased knowledge in
the early childhood field since the standards were last updated more
than 15 years ago. Changes would strengthen requirements on curriculum
and assessment, supervision, health and safety, and governance. The
rule would also streamline existing regulations to eliminate
unnecessary or duplicative requirements.
Both rules are part of the Department's retrospective review
initiative and highlight HHS's commitment to protecting the public
health and effective human services while pursuing smarter, more
efficient regulation over the next fiscal year.
HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
31. Increase Number of Patients to Which Drug Addiction
Treatment Act (DATA)--Waived Physicians Can Prescribe Buprenorphine
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule is needed to improve the national response to
the rise in prescribed opioid misuse and heroin use and related
morbidity and mortality by proposing an approach to increasing access
to buprenorphine treatment while protecting against diversion.
Medication assisted treatment (MAT) using buprenorphine, in combination
with counseling and other support services, is one important tool for
treating opioid addiction. To address this need and help close the gap
in treatment services, SAMHSA would propose to address restrictions in
the use of buprenorphine imposed by the Drug Addiction Treatment Act
(DATA 2000).
Statement of Need: The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA)
provided the means for physicians to obtain a waiver from the
Controlled Substances Act in order to treat opioid use disorders with
buprenorphine, an opioid partial opioid-agonist, without certification
from SAMHSA as an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP). However, since the
implementation of this act, the nation finds itself in the midst of a
public health crisis of prescribed opioid misuse and heroin use and
related morbidity and mortality. Every day in the United States 105
people die as a result of drug overdose and another 6,748 are treated
in emergency departments for the misuse or abuse of drugs.
Responses to this public health problem include: Education of
physicians in the appropriate management of pain and the role of opioid
analgesics; implementation of effective prescription drug monitoring
programs and other strategies to promote patient safety while reducing
fraud and abuse; and promoting access to effective treatment for opioid
use disorders. Medical and clinical evidence indicates medication-
assisted treatment with pharmacotherapies approved for the treatment of
substance use disorders are most effective for the treatment of opioid
use disorders in particular. The medication-assisted treatment of
opioid
[[Page 77764]]
use disorders reduces all-cause mortality and reduces the morbidity,
social dysfunction and criminality often associated with this
condition. However, access to effective treatment has always
encountered significant concrete obstacles such as: Lack of awareness
of substance use disorders, lack of coverage for needed services, and
inadequate treatment capacity. To help close this gap, SAMHSA would
like to address restrictions in the use of buprenorphine imposed by the
Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA 2000).
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2).
Alternatives: OTPs expansion of buprenorphine, use of naltrexone,
expansion of methadone; dose limitations, formulation limitations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we move toward publication,
estimates of the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included
in the rule.
Risks: As we move toward publication, risks of these provisions
will be included in the rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Brian Altman, Legislative Director, Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240
276-2009, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0930-AA22
HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
Final Rule Stage
32. Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts
Labels
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is amending the labeling regulations for conventional
foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition information
on the label to assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary
practices. The rule would modernize the nutrition information found on
the Nutrition Facts label, as well as the format and appearance of the
label. On July 27, 2015, FDA issued a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking accepting comments on limited additional provisions until
October 13, 2015. Also on July 27, 2015, FDA reopened the comment
period on the proposed rule as to specific documents until September
25, 2015.
Statement of Need: Almost all of the regulations for the nutrition
labeling of foods and dietary supplements have not been amended since
mandatory nutrition labeling was first required in 1993. New scientific
evidence and consumer research has become available since 1993 that can
be used to update the content and appearance of information on the
Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. Consumers can use the
updated information to select foods that will assist them to maintain
healthy dietary practices.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis derives from sections
201, 403, and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the
requirements of this regulation, when finalized, so that the economic
burden to industry can be minimized.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will affect all foods that
are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It will have a
significant cost to industry because all food labels will have to be
updated. Much of the information currently provided on the Nutrition
Facts and Supplement Facts labels is based on old reference values and
scientific information. The changes would provide more current
information to assist consumers in constructing a healthful diet. The
potential economic benefit from the final rule stems from the
improvement in diet among the U.S. population. Diet is a significant
factor in the reduction in risk of chronic diseases such as coronary
heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke, diabetes, and obesity.
Risks: If information on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts
label is not updated, reference values that serve as the basis for the
percent daily value will continue to be based on old scientific
evidence, and consumers could believe that they are consuming an
appropriate amount of nutrients when, in fact, they are not. In
addition, consumers would not be able to determine the amount of
specific nutrients in a food product because mandatory declaration of
those nutrients is not currently required. Furthermore, consumers may
overlook information on the label because it is not displayed
prominently on the label. Changes to the reference values, nutrients
declared on the label, and changes to the format and appearance of the
label would reduce the risk of consumers not having information
necessary to assist them in maintaining healthy dietary practices.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/11/03 68 FR 41507
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/09/03 .......................
Second ANPRM........................ 04/04/05 70 FR 17008
Second ANPRM Comment Period End..... 06/20/05 .......................
Third ANPRM......................... 11/02/07 72 FR 62149
Third ANPRM Comment Period End...... 01/31/08 .......................
NPRM................................ 03/03/14 79 FR 11879
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/02/14 .......................
Reopening of Comment Period as to 07/27/15 80 FR 44302
Specific Documents.
NPRM Comment Period End as to 09/25/15 .......................
Specific Documents.
Supplemental NPRM to Solicit Comment 07/27/15 80 FR 44303
on Limited Additional Provisions.
Supplemental NPRM to Solicit Comment 10/13/15 .......................
on Limited Additional Provisions
Comment Period End.
Administrative Docket Update; 09/10/15 80 FR 54446
Extension of Comment Period.
Administrative Docket Update; 10/13/15 .......................
Comment Period End.
NPRM Reopening of Comment Period for 10/20/15 80 FR 63477
Certain Documents.
NPRM Reopening of Comment Period for 10/23/15 .......................
Certain Documents Comment Period
End.
Final Action........................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 77765]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Interdisciplinary Scientist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), HFS-830, 5100
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-5429,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AF22
HHS--FDA
33. Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be
Consumed at one Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain RACCS
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371; Pub.
L. 101-535, sec 2(b)(1)(A)
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.12.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is amending its labeling regulations for foods to
provide updated Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs) for
certain food categories. This rule would provide consumers with
nutrition information based on the amount of food that is customarily
consumed, which would assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary
practices. In addition to updating certain RACCs, FDA is also amending
the definition of single-serving containers; amending the label serving
size for breath mints; and providing for dual-column labeling, which
would provide nutrition information per serving and per container or
unit, as applicable, under certain circumstances.
Statement of Need: The regulations for serving sizes for the
nutrition labeling of foods have not been amended since mandatory
nutrition labeling was first promulgated in 1993. New scientific
evidence, consumption data, and consumer research has become available
since 1993 that can be used to update the serving size information on
Nutrition Facts labels to reflect the amount of food customarily
consumed. This could allow consumers to use the serving size
information more effectively by giving them information to help them
select foods that will promote maintenance of healthy dietary
practices.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis is derived from sections
201, 403 and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and
section 2(b)(1) of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the
requirements of this regulation, so that the economic burden to
industry can be minimized. The Agency also intends to publish this
regulation simultaneously with other regulations requiring changes to
Nutrition Fact labels to ease the economic burden on manufacturers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will affect most foods
that are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It will have a
significant cost to industry because food labels on all affected foods
will have to be updated. These changes would provide more current
information to assist consumers in constructing a healthful diet.
Risks: If the RACCs are not updated, RACCs that serve as the basis
for serving sizes will continue to be based on old consumption data.
These updates to the RACCs will be based, in part, on current
nationwide consumption data. Without these updates, consumers will not
have current information to assist them in constructing a healthy diet.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/04/05 70 FR 17010
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/20/05 .......................
NPRM/Comment Period Extended........ 03/03/14 79 FR 11989
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/02/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/27/14 79 FR 29699
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/01/14 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Cherisa Henderson, Nutritionist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, HFS-830, 5100
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-5429, Fax:
301 436-1191, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AF23
HHS--FDA
34. Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350h; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42
U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 111-353 (signed on January 4, 2011)
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 112.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015, To the Office of
the Federal Register for publication.
Abstract: This rule will establish science-based minimum standards
for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which the
Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of
serious adverse health consequences or death. The purpose of the rule
is to reduce the risk of illness associated with fresh produce.
Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the
requirements of the Food Safety Moderhnization Act (FSMA) and to
address the food safety challenges associated with fresh produce and,
thereby, protect the public health. Data indicate that between 1973 and
1997, outbreaks of foodborne illness in the U.S. associated with fresh
produce increased in absolute numbers and as a proportion of all
reported foodborne illness outbreaks. The Agency issued general good
agricultural practice guidelines for fresh fruits and vegetables over a
decade ago.
[[Page 77766]]
Incorporating prevention-oriented public health principles, and
incorporating what we have learned in the past decade into a regulation
is a critical step in establishing standards for the production and
harvesting of produce, and reducing the foodborne illness attributed to
fresh produce.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on the amendments to the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), provided by
section 105 of the FSMA (codified primarily in section 419 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 350h)). FDA's legal basis also derives in part from
sections 402(a)(3), 402(a)(4), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
342(a)(3), 342(a)(4), and 371(a)). FDA also intends to rely on section
361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which
gives FDA authority to promulgate regulations to control the spread of
communicable disease.
Alternatives: Section 105 of the FSMA requires FDA to conduct this
rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs to more
than 300,000 domestic and foreign producers and packers of fresh
produce from the proposal would include one-time costs (e.g., new tools
and equipment) and recurring costs (e.g., monitoring, training,
recordkeeping). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a reduction
in foodborne illness and deaths associated with fresh produce. The
monetized annual benefits of this rule are estimated to be $1 billion,
and the monetized annual costs are estimated to be $460 million,
domestically.
Risks: This regulation would directly and materially advance the
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for
illness and death associated with foodborne infections associated with
the consumption of fresh produce. Less restrictive and less
comprehensive approaches have not been sufficiently effective in
reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. FDA anticipates
that the regulation would lead to a significant decrease in foodborne
illness associated with fresh produce consumed in the United States.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/16/13 78 FR 3503
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/16/13 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 04/26/13 78 FR 24692
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 09/16/13 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 08/09/13 78 FR 48637
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 11/15/13 .......................
Notice of Intent To Prepare an 08/19/13 78 FR 50358
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Rule.
Notice of Intent To Prepare 11/15/13 .......................
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Rule Comment Period
End.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 11/20/13 78 FR 69605
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 11/22/13 .......................
Environmental Impact Statement for 03/11/14 79 FR 13593
the Proposed Rule; Comment Period
Extended.
Environmental Impact Statement for 04/18/14 .......................
the Proposed Rule; Comment Period
Extended End.
Supplemental NPRM................... 09/29/14 79 FR 58433
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 12/15/14 .......................
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 01/14/15 80 FR 1852
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 03/13/15 .......................
Comment Period End.
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Samir Assar, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety,
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1636,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG35
HHS--FDA
35. ``Tobacco Products'' Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; Pub. L. 111-31; The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
(Tobacco Control Act) provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own
tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, permits FDA to
issue regulations deeming other tobacco products to be subject to the
FD&C Act. This rule would deem additional products meeting the
statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to be subject to the FD&C
Act, and would specify additional restrictions.
Statement of Need: Currently, the Tobacco Control Act provides FDA
with immediate authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco,
roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act
also permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products
that meet the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be
subject to the FD&C Act. This regulation is necessary to afford FDA the
authority to regulate additional products which include hookah,
electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco
products, and future tobacco products.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 901 of the FD&C Act, as amended by
the Tobacco Control Act, permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other
tobacco products to be subject to the FD&C Act. Section 906(d) provides
FDA with the authority to propose restrictions on the sale and
distribution of tobacco products, including restrictions on the access
to, and the advertising and promotion of, tobacco products if FDA
determines that such regulation would
[[Page 77767]]
be appropriate for the protection of the public health.
Alternatives: In addition to the benefits and costs of both options
for the proposed rule, FDA assessed the benefits and costs of several
alternatives to the proposed rule: e.g., deeming only, but exempt newly
deemed products from certain requirements; exempt certain classes of
products from certain requirements; deeming only, with no additional
provisions; and changes to the compliance periods.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule consists of two
co-proposals, option 1 and option 2. The proposed option 1 deems all
products meeting the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' except
accessories of a proposed deemed tobacco product to be subject to
chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Option 1 also proposes additional
provisions that would apply to proposed deemed products as well as to
certain other tobacco products. Option 2 is the same as option 1 except
that it exempts premium cigars. We expect that asserting our authority
over these tobacco products will enable us to take further regulatory
action in the future as appropriate; those actions will have their own
costs and benefits. The proposed rule would generate some direct
benefits by providing information to consumers about the risks and
characteristics of tobacco products which may result in consumers
reducing their use of cigars and other tobacco products. Other
potential benefits follow from premarket requirements which could
prevent more harmful products from appearing on the market and
worsening the health effects of tobacco product use. The proposed rule
would impose costs in the form of registration submission labeling and
other requirements; other likely costs are not quantifiable based on
current data.
Risks: Adolescence is the peak time for tobacco use initiation and
experimentation. In recent years, new and emerging tobacco products,
sometimes referred to as ``novel tobacco products,'' have been
developed and are becoming an increasing concern to public health due,
in part, to their appeal to youth and young adults. Non-regulated
tobacco products come in many forms, including electronic cigarettes,
nicotine gels, and certain dissolvable tobacco products (i.e., those
dissolvable products that do not currently meet the definition of
smokeless tobacco under 21 U.S.C. 387(18) because they do not contain
cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco, and instead contain nicotine
extracted from tobacco), and these products are widely available. This
deeming rule is necessary to provide FDA with authority to regulate
these products (e.g., registration, product and ingredient listing,
user fees for certain products, premarket requirements, and
adulteration and misbranding provisions). In addition, the additonal
restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed
products will protect youth by restricting minors' access to these
products and will increase consumer understanding of the impact of
these products on public health. This rule is consistent with other
approaches that the Agency has taken to address the tobacco epidemic
and is particularly necessary, given that consumer use may be
gravitating to the proposed deemed products.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/25/14 79 FR 23142
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/09/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 06/24/14 79 FR 35711
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/08/14 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Gerie Voss, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Department
of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Tobacco Products, Document Control Center, Building 71, Room G335,
10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 877 287-
1373, Fax: 301 595-1426, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG38
HHS--FDA
36. Reports of Distribution and Sales Information for Antimicrobial
Active Ingredients Used in Food-Producing Animals
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b(l); 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514.80.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule would require that the sponsor of each
approved or conditionally approved antimicrobial new animal drug
product submit an annual report to the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA or Agency) on the amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient
in the drug product that is sold or distributed for use in food-
producing animals, including any distributor-labeled product. In
addition to codifying these requirements, FDA is exploring other
requirements for the collection of additional drug distribution data.
Statement of Need: Section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2008 (ADUFA) amended section 512 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to require that the sponsor of each
approved or conditionally appoved new animal drug product that contains
an antimicrobial active ingredient submit an annual report to FDA on
the amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient in the drug product
that is sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals,
including information on any distributor-labeled product. This
legislation was enacted to assist FDA in its continuing analysis of the
interactions (including drug resistance), efficacy, and safety of
antibiotics approved for use in both humans and food-producing animals
(H. Rpt. 110-804). This rulemaking is to codify these requirements. In
addition, FDA is exploring the establishment of other reporting
requirements to provide for the collection of additional drug
distribution data, including reporting sales and distribution data by
species.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 of ADUFA (Pub. L. 110-316; 122
Stat. 3509) amended section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) to
require that sponsors of approved or conditionally approved
applications for new animal drugs containing an antimicrobial active
ingredient submit an annual report to the Food and Drug Administration
on the amount of each such ingredient in the drug that is sold or
distributed for use in food-producing animals, including information on
any distributor-labeled product. FDA is also issuing this rule under
its authority under section 512(l) of the FD&C Act to collect
information relating to approved new animal drugs.
Alternatives: This rulemaking codifies the congressional mandate of
ADUFA section 105. The annual reporting required under ADUFA section
105 is necessary to address potential problems concerning the safety
and effectiveness of antimicrobial new animal drugs. Less
[[Page 77768]]
frequent data collection would hinder this purpose.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Sponsors of antimicrobial drugs sold
for use in food-producing animals currently report sales and
distribution data to the Agency under section 105 of ADUFA; this
rulemaking will codify in FDA's regulations a current statutory
requirement. There may be a minimal additional labor cost if any other
reporting requirement is included. Additional data beyond the reporting
requirements specified in ADUFA section 105 will help the Agency better
understand how the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in
food-producing animals may relate to antimicrobial resistance.
Risks: Section 105 of ADUFA was enacted to address the problem of
antimicrobial resistance, and to help ensure that FDA has the necessary
information to examine safety concerns related to the use of
antibiotics in food-producing animals. 154 Congressional Record H7534.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/27/12 77 FR 44177
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 09/25/12 .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 09/26/12 77 FR 59156
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 11/26/12 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 05/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Sujaya Dessai, Supervisory Veterinary Medical
Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Room 2620, HFV-212,
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 402-5761, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG45
HHS--FDA
37. Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350g; 21
U.S.C. 350i; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; Pub. L. 111-353
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 121.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, May 31, 2016, To the Office of the
Federal Register for publication.
Abstract: This rule would require domestic and foreign food
facilities that are required to register under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to address hazards that may be intentionally
introduced by acts of terrorism. These food facilities would be
required to identify and implement focused mitigation strategies to
significantly minimize or prevent significant vulnerabilities
identified at actionable process steps in a food operation.
Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the
requirements of the FSMA and to protect food from intentional
adulteration when the intent is to cause large-scale public harm.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is
provided by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) as
amended by sections 103, 105, and 106 of the Food Safety Modernization
Act (FSMA). Section 418 of the FD&C Act addresses intentional
adulteration in the context of facilities that manufacture, process,
pack, or hold food and are required to register under section 415 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g). Section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
350h) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of fruits and
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities. Section 420 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses intentional adulteration in the
context of high risk foods and exempts farms except for farms that
produce milk. FDA is implementing the intentional adulteration
provisions in sections 418, 419, and 420 of the FD&C Act in this
rulemaking.
Alternatives: Section 103, 105 and 106 of the FDA, Food Safety
Modernization Act require FDA to conduct this rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs from
the proposal to domestic and foreign producers and packers of processed
foods would include new one-time costs (e.g., adoption of written food
defense plans, setting up training programs, etc.) and recurring costs
(e.g., training employees, and completing and maintaining records used
throughout the facility). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a
reduction in the possibility of illness, death, and economic disruption
resulting from intentional adulteration of food.
Risks: This regulation will directly and materially advance the
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risk for
illness and death associated with intentional adulteration of food.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/24/13 78 FR 78014
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 03/25/14 79 FR 16251
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/31/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 06/30/14 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jody Menikheim, Supervisory General Health
Scientist, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005),
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1864,
Fax: 301 436-2633, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG63
HHS--FDA
38. Foreign Supplier Verification Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384a; title III, sec 301 of FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act; Pub. L. 111-353, establishing sec 805 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015, To the Office of
the Federal Register for publication.
Abstract: This rule describes what a food importer must do to
verify that its foreign suppliers produce food that is as safe as food
produced in the United States. FDA is taking this action to improve the
safety of food that is imported into the United States.
Statement of Need: The rule is needed to help improve the safety of
food that is imported into the United States.
[[Page 77769]]
Imported food products have increased dramatically over the last
several decades. Data indicate that about 15 percent of the U.S. food
supply is imported. FSMA provides the Agency with additional tools and
authorities to help ensure that imported foods are safe for U.S.
consumers. Included among these tools and authorities is a requirement
that importers perform risk-based foreign supplier verification
activities to verify that the food they import is produced in
compliance with U.S. requirements, as applicable, and is not
adulterated or misbranded. This proposed rule on the content of foreign
supplier verification programs (FSVPs) sets forth the proposed steps
that food importers would be required to take to fulfill their
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the food they bring into
this country.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
384a(c)) directs FDA, not later than one year after the date of
enactment of FSMA, to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs.
Section 805(c)(4) states that verification activities under such
programs may include monitoring records for shipments, lot-by-lot
certification of compliance, annual onsite inspections, checking the
hazard analysis and risk-based preventive control plans of foreign
suppliers, and periodically testing and sampling shipments of imported
products. Section 301(b) of FSMA amends section 301 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 331) by adding section 301(zz), which designates as a prohibited
act the importation or offering for importation of a food if the
importer (as defined in section 805) does not have in place an FSVP in
compliance with section 805. In addition, section 301(c) of FSMA amends
section 801(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) by stating that an
article of food being imported or offered for import into the United
States shall be refused admission if it appears, from an examination of
a sample of such an article or otherwise, that the importer is in
violation of section 805.
Alternatives: We are considering a range of alternative approaches
to the requirements for foreign supplier verification activities. These
might include: (1) Establishing a general requirement that importers
determine and conduct whatever verification activity would adequately
address the risks associated with the foods they import; (2) allowing
importers to choose from a list of possible verification mechanisms,
such as the activities listed in section 805(c)(4) of the FD&C Act; (3)
requiring importers to conduct particular verification activities for
certain types of foods or risks (e.g., for high-risk foods), but
allowing flexibility in verification activities for other types of
foods or risks; and (4) specifying use of a particular verification
activity for each particular kind of food or risk. To the extent
possible while still ensuring that verification activities are adequate
to ensure that foreign suppliers are producing food in accordance with
applicable U.S. requirements, we will seek to give importers the
flexibility to choose verification procedures that are appropriate to
adequately address the risks associated with the importation of a
particular food.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are still estimating the cost and
benefits for this rule. However, the available information suggests
that the costs will be significant. Our preliminary analysis of FY10
OASIS data suggests that this rule will cover about 60,000 importers,
240,000 unique combinations of importers and foreign suppliers, and
540,000 unique combinations of importers, products, and foreign
suppliers. These numbers imply that provisions that require activity
for each importer, each unique combination of importer and foreign
supplier, or each unique combination of importer, product, and foreign
supplier will generate significant costs. An example of a provision
linked to combinations of importers and foreign suppliers would be a
requirement to conduct a verification activity, such as an onsite
audit, under certain conditions. The cost of onsite audits will depend,
in part, on whether foreign suppliers can provide the same onsite audit
results to different importers, or whether every importer will need to
take some action with respect to each of their foreign suppliers. The
benefits of this rule will consist of the reduction of adverse health
events linked to imported food that could result from increased
compliance with applicable requirements, and are accounted for in the
proposed rules that contain those requirements.
Risks: As stated above, about 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is
imported, and many of these imported foods are high-risk commodities.
According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, each year, about 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are
hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases. We expect that the
adoption of FSVPs by food importers will benefit the public health by
helping to ensure that imported food is produced in compliance with
other applicable food safety regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/29/13 78 FR 45729
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/26/13 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 11/20/13 78 FR 69602
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 01/27/14 .......................
Supplemental NPRM................... 09/29/14 79 FR 58573
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 12/15/14 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian L. Pendleton, Senior Policy Advisor,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Office of Policy, WO 32, Room 4245, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-4614, Fax: 301 847-8616, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG64
HHS--FDA
39. Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to
Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue Certifications
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384d; Pub. L. 111-353; sec 307 FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 381; 21 U.S.C. 384b;
. . .
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015, To the Office of
the Federal Register for publication.
Abstract: This rule establishes regulations for accreditation of
third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits. FDA is taking this
action to improve the safety of food that is imported into the United
States.
Statement of Need: The use of accredited third-party auditors to
certify food imports will assist in ensuring the safety of food from
foreign origin entering U.S. commerce. Accredited third-party auditors
auditing foreign facilities can increase FDA's information about
foreign facilities that FDA may not have adequate resources
[[Page 77770]]
to inspect in a particular year. FDA will establish identified
standards creating overall uniformity to complete the task. Audits that
result in issuance of facility or food certification will provide FDA
information about the compliance status of the facility. Additionally,
auditors will be required to submit audit reports that may be reviewed
by FDA for purposes of compliance assessment and work planning.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 808 of the FD&C Act directs FDA to
establish, not later than two years after the date of enactment, a
system for the recognition of accreditation bodies that accredit third-
party auditors, who, in turn, certify that eligible entities are in
compliance with the provisions of the FD&C Act. If within two years
after the date of the establishment of the system, FDA has not
identified and recognized an accreditation body, FDA may directly
accredit third party auditors.
Alternatives: FSMA described in detail the framework for, and
requirements of, the accredited third-party auditor program.
Alternatives include the degree to which the standards in the
requirements are prescriptive or flexible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule
would be less unsafe or misbranded food entering U.S. commerce.
Additional benefits include the increased flow of credible information
to FDA regarding the compliance status of foreign firms and their foods
that are ultimately offered for import into the United States, which
information, in turn, would inform FDA's work planning for inspection
of foreign food facilities and might result in a signal of possible
problems with a particular firm or its products, and with sufficient
signals, might raise questions about the rigor of the food safety
regulatory system of the country of origin. The compliance costs of the
proposed rule would result from the additional labor and capital
required of accreditation bodies seeking FDA recognition and of third-
party auditors seeking accreditation to the extent that will involve
the assembling of information for an application unique to the FDA
third-party auditor program, as well as assembling renewal applications
and required reports and notifications. The compliance costs associated
with certification will be accounted for separately under the costs
associated with participation in the Voluntary Qualified Importer
Program. The third-party program is funded through revenue neutral-user
fees, which will be developed by FDA through rulemaking.
Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance that
the food offered for import into the United States is safe and will not
cause injury or illness to animals or humans. The rule would implement
a program for accrediting third-party auditors to conduct food safety
audits of foreign food entities, including registered foreign food
facilities, and based on the findings of the regulatory audit, to issue
food or facility certifications. The certifications could be used by
importers seeking to participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer
Program for expedited review and entry of product, and would be a means
to provide assurance of compliance with the FD&C Act as a food risk-
related consideration. The food certifications could be used when FDA
makes decisions regarding the importation of foods with safety risks.
The rule would apply to any foreign or domestic accreditation body
seeking FDA recognition, any foreign or domestic third-party auditor
seeking accreditation, any foreign food entity, that chooses to be
audited by an accredited third party auditor and any importer seeking
to participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program. Fewer
instances of unsafe or misbranded food entering U.S. commerce would
reduce the risk of serious illness and death to humans and animals.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/29/13 78 FR 45781
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/26/13 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 11/20/13 78 FR 69603
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 01/27/14 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
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: Charlotte A. Christin, Acting Director, Division of
Enforcement, Office of Compliance, Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Room 2C019, College Park,
MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-3708, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG66
HHS--FDA
40. Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved
Drugs and Biological Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21
U.S.C. 353; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262; . . .
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.70; 21 CFR 314.97; 21 CFR 314.150; 21 CFR
601.12.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would amend the regulations regarding new drug
applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and
biologics license applications (BLAs) to revise and clarify procedures
for changes to the labeling of an approved drug to reflect certain
types of newly acquired information in advance of FDA's review of such
change.
Statement of Need: In the current marketplace, approximately 80
percent of drugs dispensed are generic drugs approved in ANDAs. ANDA
holders, like NDA holders and BLA holders, are required to promptly
review all adverse drug experience information obtained or otherwise
received, and comply with applicable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. However, under current FDA regulations, ANDA holders are
not permitted to use the changes being effected (CBE) supplement
process in the same manner as NDA holders and BLA holders to
independently update product labeling with certain newly acquired
safety information. This regulatory difference recently has been
determined to mean that an individual can bring a product liability
action for ``failure to warn'' against an NDA holder, but generally not
an ANDA holder. This may alter the incentives for generic drug
manufacturers to comply with current requirements to conduct robust
postmarketing surveillance, evaluation, and reporting, and to ensure
that their product labeling is accurate and up-to-date. Accordingly,
there is a need for ANDA holders to be able to independently update
product labeling to reflect certain newly acquired safety information
as part of the ANDA holder's independent responsibility to ensure that
its product labeling is accurate and up-to-date.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
301 et seq.) and the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.)
provide FDA with authority over the labeling for drugs and biological
products, and authorize the Agency to enact regulations to facilitate
FDA's review and approval of applications regarding
[[Page 77771]]
the labeling for those products. FDA's authority to extend the CBE
supplement process for certain safety-related labeling changes to ANDA
holders arises from the same authority under which FDA's regulations
relating to NDA holders and BLA holders were issued.
Alternatives: FDA is considering several alternatives described in
comments submitted to the public docket established for the proposed
rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA is reviewing comments submitted
to the public docket and evaluating the anticipated costs and benefits
that would be associated with a final rule.
Risks: This rule is intended to remove obstacles to the prompt
communication of safety-related labeling changes that meet the
regulatory criteria for a CBE supplement. The rule may encourage
generic drug companies to participate more actively with FDA in
ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of drug safety
labeling in accordance with current regulatory requirements. FDA's
posting of information on its Web site regarding the safety-related
labeling changes proposed in pending CBE supplements would enhance
transparency, and facilitate access by health care providers and the
public so that such information may be used to inform treatment
decisions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/13/13 78 FR 67985
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/27/13 78 FR 78796
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/13/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 03/13/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 02/18/15 80 FR 8577
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End.... 04/27/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Janice L. Weiner, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue,
Building 51, Room 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-
3601, Fax: 301 847-8440, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG94
HHS--FDA
41. Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 350e; 21 U.S.C. 373; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21
U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 371; . . .
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, March 31, 2016, To the Office of
the Federal Register for publication.
Abstract: This rule would establish requirements for parties
including shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, and
receivers engaged in the transportation of food, including food for
animals, to use sanitary transportation practices to ensure that food
is not transported under conditions that may render the food
adulterated.
Statement of Need: There have been concerns over the past few
decades about the need to ensure that food is transported in the United
States in a sanitary manner. Congress responded to these concerns by
passing the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 (1990 SFTA) which
directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish
regulations to prevent food or food additives transported in certain
types of bulk vehicles from being contaminated by nonfood products that
were simultaneously or previously transported in those vehicles.
Following the passage of the 1990 SFTA it became clear that potential
sources of food contamination during transport were not just limited to
nonfood products. Most notably, a 1994 outbreak of salmonellosis
occurred in which ice cream mix became contaminated during transport in
tanker trucks that had previously hauled raw liquid eggs. That outbreak
affected an estimated 224,000 persons nationwide. In 2005, Congress
reallocated authority for food transportation safety to the Food and
Drug Administration, Department of Transportation and the United States
Department of Agriculture by passing the 2005 Sanitary Food
Transportation Act (2005 SFTA), a broader food transportation safety
law than the 1990 SFTA in that its focus was not limited only to
preventing food contamination from nonfood sources during
transportation. The 2005 SFTA amended the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act), in part, by creating a new section, 416 of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 350e). Section 416(b) of the FD&C Act directed us to issue
regulations to require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail
vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the transportation of
food to use prescribed sanitary transportation practices to ensure that
food is not transported under conditions that may render the food
adulterated. In addition, section 111(a) of Food Safety Modernization
Act (FSMA), directed us to issue these sanitary transportation
regulations not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
FSMA. This action is part of FDA's larger effort to focus on prevention
of food safety problems throughout the food chain.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is
provided in the Sanitary Food Transportation Act (Pub. L. 109-59) which
amended the FD&C Act by establishing section 416 which directed FDA to
issue regulations to require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or
rail vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the
transportation of food to use prescribed sanitary transportation
practices to ensure that food is not transported under conditions that
may render the food adulterated. FDA is also issuing this rule under
section 111(a) of the Food Safety Modernization Act (Pub. L. 111-353),
which directed FDA to promulgate these sanitary transportation
regulations. In addition, section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
371(a)) authorizes the Agency to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the Act.
Alternatives: FSMA requires FDA to promulgate regulations to
establish sanitary transportation practices under the authority of the
2005 SFTA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because no complete data exist to
precisely quantify the likelihood of food becoming adulterated during
its transport, we are unable to estimate the effectiveness of the
requirements of the proposed rule to reduce potential adverse health
effects in humans or animals. Furthermore, while we expect small
changes in behavior (in the form of safer practices), we do not
anticipate large scale changes in practices as a result of the
requirements of this proposed rule. Nevertheless, improving food
transportation systems could reduce the number of recalls, reduce the
risk of adverse health effects related to such contaminated human and
animal food and feed, and reduce the losses of contaminated human and
animal food and feed ingredients and products. The
[[Page 77772]]
compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the additional
labor and capital required to carry out sanitary transportation
practices during transportation operations and the costs to train
personnel and keep the required records.
Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to establish sanitary
transportation practices to provide greater assurance that food will
not become adulterated during transportation and will not cause illness
or injury to humans or animals. The rule would apply to food
transported in the United States by motor vehicle or rail vehicle.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/30/10 75 FR 22713
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 08/30/10 .......................
NPRM................................ 02/05/14 79 FR 7005
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/23/14 79 FR 29699
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/31/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 07/30/14 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: Michael E. Kashtock, Supervisory Consumer Safety
Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of
Food Safety, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
240 402-2022, Fax: 301 346-2632, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG98
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
42. Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Update (CMS-
4168-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395; 42 U.S.C.
1395eee(f); 42 U.S.C. 1396u-4(f)
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 460.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would update the PACE regulations
published on December 8, 2006. The rule would improve the quality of
the existing regulations, provide operational flexibility and
modifications, and remove redundancies and outdated information. These
updates are intended to ensure the health and safety of PACE
participants.
Statement of Need: We are proposing to revise and update policies
to reflect subsequent changes in the practice of caring for PACE
participants and changes in technology based on our experience
implementing and overseeing the PACE program. PACE has proven
successful in keeping frail elderly individuals, some of whom are
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits (dual eligibles), in
the community. However, we believe that we should revise certain
regulatory provisions to afford more flexibility as a means to
encourage the expansion of the PACE program to more states, increasing
access for participants, and further enhancing the program's
effectiveness at providing care while reducing costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 1894(f)(2) and 1934(f)(2) of the
Act state that the Secretary shall incorporate the requirements applied
to PACE demonstration waiver programs under the PACE Protocol when
issuing interim final or final regulations, to the extent consistent
with the provisions of sections 1894 and 1934 of the Act, but allow the
Secretary to modify or waive these provisions under certain
circumstances. Sections 1894(a)(6) and 1934(a)(6) of the Act define the
PACE Protocol as the Protocol for PACE as published by On Lok, Inc., as
of April 14, 1995, or any successor protocol that may be agreed upon
between the Secretary and On Lok, Inc. We issued the 1999 and 2002
interim final rules and the 2006 final rule under this authority.
Alternatives: The requirements for the PACE program have not been
comprehensively updated in many years, but the effective and efficient
delivery of health care services has changed substantially in that
time. We could choose not to make any regulatory changes; however, we
believe the changes we are proposing are necessary to ensure the
requirements are consistent with current standards of practice and
continue to meet statutory obligations. They will ensure that
participants receive care that maintains or enhances quality of life
and enable them to remain in the community.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we move toward publication,
estimates of the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included
in the rule.
Risks: None. The proposals in this rule would update the existing
requirements to reflect current standards of practice. In addition,
proposed changes would provide added flexibility to providers, improve
efficiency and effectiveness, and enhance participant quality of care
and life.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Martha Hennessy, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Centers for Medicare, MS: C4-21-26, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0575, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR60
HHS--CMS
43. Expansion of the CMS Qualified Entity Program (CMS-5061-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-10, sec 105
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 401.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 1, 2016, MACRA requires rule
be effective by July 1, 2016.
Abstract: Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act
(MACRA), this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements that
expand the permissible uses of Medicare claims data that is obtained by
qualified entities in accordance with applicable information, privacy,
security and disclosure laws. In doing so, this rule would explain how
qualified entities may create non-public analyses and provide or sell
such analyses to authorized users, as well as how qualified entities
may provide or sell combined data, or provide Medicare claims data
alone at no cost, to certain authorized users. This rule would also
implement certain privacy and security requirements and impose
assessments on qualified entities in the case of a violation of a data
use agreement.
Statement of Need: The Qualified Entity Program, established by
Section 10332 of the Affordable Care Act,
[[Page 77773]]
authorizes the disclosure of Medicare claims data to qualified entities
for use in public provider performance reporting. New legislation in
MACRA expands the use of Medicare data by qualified entities to include
additional analyses and access to certain data. Effective July 1, 2016,
qualified entities may use the combined Medicare and other claims data
to conduct non-public analyses and provide or sell these analyses to
select users for non-public use. In addition, qualified entities may
sell the combined data or provide the Medicare data at no cost to
providers, suppliers, hospital associations, and medical societies for
non-public use. While qualified entities are allowed to use the CMS
data for other purposes than public reporting, the legislation also
includes an assessment on the qualified entity for a breach of a data
use agreement and new requirements for annual reporting by the
qualified entities. These changes to the qualified entity program are
important in driving higher quality, lower cost care in Medicare and
the health system in general. Additionally, these changes are expected
to drive renewed interest in the qualified entity program, leading to
more transparency of provider and supplier performance while ensuring
beneficiary privacy.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 of MACRA requires proposed and
final rules to be published and effective by July 1, 2016. This
legislation expands both the uses of Medicare data by Qualified
Entities as well as the data made available to them.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we move toward publication,
estimates of the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included
in the rule.
Risks: The rule would require qualified entities to provide
sufficient evidence of data privacy and security protection
capabilities in order to avoid increased risks related to the
protection of beneficiary identifiable data.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Allison Oelschlaeger, Special Assistant, Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, MS: 339D, 7500 Security Blvd.,
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 202 690-8257, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS66
HHS--CMS
44. Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and
Alternative Payment Models (APMS) in Medicare Fee-for-Service (CMS-
5517-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-10, sec 101
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016, MACRA deadline
for establishing physician-focused payment model criteria. Final,
Statutory, January 1, 2017, MACRA deadline for requirements and
policies for MIPS.
Abstract: This proposed rule would implement provisions of the
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) related to MIPS
and APMs. Section 101 of MACRA authorizes a new MIPS, which repeals the
Medicare sustainable growth rate and improves Medicare payments for
physician services. MACRA consolidates the current programs of the
Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier, and the
Electronic Health Records Incentive Program into one program, MIPS,
that streamlines and improves on the three distinct incentive programs.
Additionally, MACRA authorizes incentive payments for providers who
participate in eligible APMs.
Statement of Need: Under MACRA, payment adjustments to eligible
professional (EP) payments through MIPS and incentive payments for
qualifying APM participants will be applied beginning January 1, 2019.
EPs under MIPS will be assessed a payment adjustment using four
performance categories: quality, resource use, clinical practice
improvement activities, and meaningful use of certified electronic
health record (EHR) technology. Qualifying APM participants must have a
specified amount of their Medicare expenditures or patients through an
eligible APM that meets legislative criteria that include quality
measures comparable to those in MIPS, required use of certified EHR
technology, and either more than nominal financial risk or a structure
as a medical home model. Additionally, specific to physician-focused
APMs, the legislation creates a Technical Advisory Committee whose role
is to receive and evaluate proposed APMs from the public and requires
that the Secretary establish criteria for physician-focused payment
models, including models for specialist physicians, by November 1,
2016.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 101 of MACRA requires proposed and
final rules be published by November 1, 2016, for release of criteria
for publicly submitted physician-focused payment models and for the
release of the MIPS quality measure list.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we move toward publication,
estimates of the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included
in the rule.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physicians would
not have adequate time to prepare for the MIPS.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Tribal.
Agency Contact: James Sharp, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Center,
MS: WB-06-05, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
7388, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS69
HHS--CMS
45. Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment
System and FY 2017 Rates (CMS-1655-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2016. Final, Statutory,
August 1, 2016.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare
hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment
systems for operating and capital-related costs. This rule would
implement changes arising
[[Page 77774]]
from our continuing experience with these systems.
Statement of Need: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (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 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 2017 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60
days before October 1, 2016.
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 systems, 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, 2016.
Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2017.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning
October 1, 2016.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Donald Thompson, Deputy Director, Division of Acute
Care, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-26, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6504, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS77
HHS--CMS
46. CY 2017 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Medicare Part B (CMS-1654-P)
(Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; Pub. L. 114-10
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 409; 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 414.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise payment polices
under the Medicare physician fee schedule, and make other policy
changes to payment under Medicare Part B. These changes would apply to
services furnished beginning January 1, 2017.
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 rule would implement changes
affecting Medicare Part B payment to physicians and other Part B
suppliers. The final rule has a statutory publication date of November
1, 2016, and an implementation date of January 1, 2017.
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 an annual deadline of no
later than November 1 for publication of the final rule or final
physician fee schedule.
Alternatives: None. This rule implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2017.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2017.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ryan Howe, Director, Division of Practitioner
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-15, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3355, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS81
HHS--CMS
47. CY 2017 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment
Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and
Payment Rates (CMS-1656-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 419.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare
hospital outpatient prospective payment system to implement statutory
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with
this system. The rule describes changes to the amounts and factors used
to determine payment rates for services. In addition, the rule would
change 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.
Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical enters (ASCs) under the
ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under the ASC
payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for
inflation. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for
the 2017 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1,
2017.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 of the Social Security Act
establishes Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services and ASC
services. The rule revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC payment
system to implement applicable statutory requirements. In addition, the
rule describes changes to the outpatient APC
[[Page 77775]]
system, relative payment weights, outlier adjustments, and other
amounts and factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare
hospital outpatient services paid under the prospective payment system
as well as changes to the rates and services paid under the ASC payment
system. These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or
after January 1, 2017.
Alternatives: None. This rule is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2017.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning
January 1, 2017.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Marjorie Baldo, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-03-06, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4617, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS82
HHS--CMS
Final Rule Stage
48. Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and
CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions Related to Third
Party Liability (CMS-2390-F)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 438.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care
regulations to reflect changes in the usage of managed care delivery
systems. The rule aligns the rules governing Medicaid managed care with
those of other major sources of coverage, including coverage through
Qualified Health Plans and Medicare Advantage plans; implements
statutory provisions; strengthens actuarial soundness payment
provisions to promote the accountability of Medicaid managed care
program rates; ensures appropriate beneficiary protections; and,
enhances expectations for program integrity. This rule also implements
provisions of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization
Act (CHIPRA) and addresses third party liability for trauma codes.
Statement of Need: This rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care
regulations recognizing changes in the usage of managed care delivery
systems since the release of the final rule in 2002. As Medicaid
managed care programs have developed and matured in the intervening
years, States have taken various approaches to implementation. This has
resulted in inconsistencies and, in some cases, less than optimal
results. To improve consistency and adopt policies and practices from
States that have proven the most successful, we include revisions in
this rule to strengthen beneficiary protections, support alignment with
rules governing managed care in other public and private sector
programs, strengthen actuarial soundness and the accountability of
rates paid in the Medicaid managed care program, improve quality of
care, and implement statutory provisions issued since 2002. The rule
also applies some of the Medicaid managed care regulations to the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress enacted specific standards for
Medicaid managed care programs in sections 4701 through 4709 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The BBA represented the first
comprehensive revision to Federal statutes governing Medicaid managed
care since the early 1980s. These standards are codified in sections
1903 and 1932 of the Act and implemented in a final rule published June
14, 2002 (67 FR 40989). The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization
Act of 2009 and the Affordable Care Act applied some of the Medicaid
managed care statutory provisions to CHIP.
Alternatives: We could choose not to make any regulatory changes;
however, while the 2002 final rule has been the guiding regulation for
Medicaid managed care, many questions and issues have arisen in the
intervening years due to the current version's lack of clarity or
detail in some areas. With no guidance in these areas, States have
created various standards, leading to inconsistency and, in some cases,
less than optimal program performance. Additionally, many issues have
arisen from the evolution of managed care that have rendered some
provisions nearly obsolete. For example, the existing version gives
little acknowledgement to the use of electronic means of communication
and no recognition to the recently created health care coverage options
offered through the Federal and State marketplaces. This creates gaps
that leave States and managed care plans with unclear, non-existent, or
confusing guidance and standards for program operation. We believe that
with consistent standards and clearly defined flexibilities for States,
programs can develop in ways that not only transform the healthcare
delivery system and fulfill the mission of the Medicaid program, but
can improve the health and wellness of Medicaid enrollees.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The overall economic impact for this
rule is estimated to be $112 million in the first year of
implementation. Additionally, non-quantifiable benefits include
improved health outcomes, reduced unnecessary services, improved
beneficiary experience, improved access, and improved program
transparency which facilitates better decisionmaking.
Risks: None. It is necessary to modernize the Medicaid and CHIP
managed care and quality regulations to support health care delivery
system reform, improve population health outcomes, and improve the
beneficiary experience in a cost effective and consistent manner in all
states.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/01/15 80 FR 31097
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/27/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Nicole Kaufman, Technical Director, Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: S2-14-16, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6604, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS25
BILLING CODE 4150-24-P
[[Page 77776]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) 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 six main areas of responsibility:
1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
3. Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws,
4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
6. Mature and Strengthen DHS
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 main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at
http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall
2015 regulatory plan and in the agenda support the Department's
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 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3,
2007); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public
Law 110-229 (May 8, 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 agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that
the project fosters and supports the Department's mission. The
Department 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
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, 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.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the following
regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and
analysis. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can
find more information about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions
sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on this list,
however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these
rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1601-AA58................................. Professional Conduct for
Practitioners Rules and
Procedures, and
Representation and
Appearances
1615-AB95................................. Immigration Benefits
Business Transformation,
Increment II; Nonimmigrants
Classes.
1615-AC00................................. Enhancing Opportunities for
H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
Nonimmigrants and EB-1
Immigrants.
1625-AB38................................. Updates to Maritime
Security.
1625-AB80................................. Revision to Transportation
Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC)
Requirements for Mariners.
1625-AC15................................. Seafarers' Access to
Maritime Facilities.
1651-AA96................................. Definition of Form I-94 to
Include Electronic Format.
1651-AB05................................. Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) Procedures.
1653-AA63................................. Adjustments to Limitations
on Designated School
Official Assignment and
Study By F-2 and M-2
Nonimmigrants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
Pursuant to sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012), DHS
has identified the following regulatory actions that have significant
international impacts. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list
may be completed actions. You can find more information about these
completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda
(search the Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the
entries on this list, however, are active rulemakings. You can find
entries for these rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 77777]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1625-AB38................................. Updates to Maritime
Security.
1651-AA70................................. Importer Security Filing and
Additional Carrier
Requirements.
1651-AA72................................. Changes to the Visa Waiver
Program To Implement the
Electronic System for
Travel Authorization (ESTA)
Program.
1651-AA98................................. Amendments to Importer
Security Filing and
Additional Carrier
Requirements.
1651-AA96................................. Definition of Form I-94 to
Include Electronic Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation
activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant
regulations. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary U.S.
representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and
plays a major leadership role in establishing international standards
in the global maritime community. IMO's work to establish international
standards for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection
closely aligns with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations. As an IMO member
nation, the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO treaty provisions not
already part of U.S. domestic policy into regulations for those vessels
affected by the international standards. Consequently, the U.S. Coast
Guard initiates rulemakings to harmonize with IMO international
standards such as treaty provisions and the codes, conventions,
resolutions, and circulars that supplement them.
Also, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper created the Canada-
U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in February 2011. The RCC is
an initiative between both Federal Governments aimed at pursuing
greater alignment in regulation, increasing mutual recognition of
regulatory practices and establishing smarter, more effective and less
burdensome regulations in specific sectors. The Canada-U.S. RCC
initiative arose out of the recognition that high level, focused, and
sustained effort would be required to reach a more substantive level of
regulatory cooperation. Since its creation in early 2011, the U.S.
Coast Guard has participated in stakeholder consultations with their
Transport Canada counterparts and the public, drafted items for
inclusion in the RCC Action Plan, and detailed work plans for each
included Action Plan item.
The fall 2015 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 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 2015 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, offices,
and directorates.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers
immigration benefits and services while protecting and securing our
homeland. 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 To Facilitate Retention of High-Skilled Workers and
Entrepreneurs
Employment-Based Immigration Modernization. USCIS will propose to
implement certain provisions of the American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 and the American Competitiveness in
the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, Public Law 106-313, as amended by
the Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273. USCIS will seek public
feedback in codifying its interpretation of these statutes.
Additionally, USCIS will propose to amend its regulations to provide
greater stability and job flexibility to certain beneficiaries of
approved employment-based immigrant petitions during their transition
from nonimmigrant to lawful permanent residence status and to enable
U.S. businesses to hire and retain highly-skilled foreign-born workers.
Significant Public Benefit Parole for Entrepreneurs. USCIS will
propose to establish conditions for paroling foreign entrepreneurs into
the United States based on case-by-case discretionary determinations
that their entrepreneurial activities in the United States will provide
the United States with a significant public benefit. Parole under these
conditions would allow individuals who have been awarded substantial
U.S. investor financing or otherwise hold the promise of innovation and
job creation through the development of new technologies or the pursuit
of cutting edge research to pursue development of startup businesses in
the United States. This would provide an opportunity for much needed
innovation and job creation in the United States.
Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled Workers. DHS will issue a
final rule following its May 2014, proposed rule designed to encourage
and facilitate the employment and retention of certain high-skilled and
transitional workers. As proposed, the rule would amend regulations
affecting high-skilled workers within the nonimmigrant classifications
for specialty occupation professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1)
and from Australia (E-3), to include these classifications in the list
of classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to status with
a specific employer, to extend automatic employment authorization
extensions with pending extension of stay requests, and to update
filing procedures. The rule would also amend regulations regarding
continued employment authorization for nonimmigrant workers in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only Transitional
Worker (CW-1) classification. Finally, the rule would amend regulations
related to the immigration classification for employment-based first
preference (EB-1) outstanding professors or researchers to allow the
submission of comparable evidence. These changes would encourage and
facilitate the employment and retention of these high-skilled workers.
Improvements to the Immigration System
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers. DHS will issue a final rule
following its July 2015, proposed rule regarding the provisional
unlawful presence waiver process. As proposed,
[[Page 77778]]
this rule would expand access to the provisional unlawful presence
waiver program to additional aliens for whom an immigrant visa is
immediately available and who can show extreme hardship to a qualifying
U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.
Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS
will propose to revise the procedural regulations governing appeals and
motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative Appeals
Office, and to require that applicants and petitioners exhaust
administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of an
unfavorable decision. The changes proposed by the rule will streamline
the procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the
efficiency of the adjudication process.
Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands. This final rule amends DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of
2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States
to the Consolidated Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). In 2009, USCIS
issued an interim final rule to implement conforming amendments to the
DHS and DOJ regulations. This joint DHS-DOJ final rule titled
``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI'' would finalize
the 2009 interim final rule.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking,
DHS and 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 or 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 would clarify the required level of the
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking) and U
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). USCIS hopes to provide
greater consistency in eligibility, application, and procedural
requirements for these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the
community through these regulatory initiatives. These rulemakings will
contain provisions to adjust documentary requirements for this
vulnerable population and provide greater clarity to the law
enforcement community.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions. This final rule makes
procedural changes and resolves interpretive issues following the
amendments mandated by Congress. It will enable child aliens who have
been abused, neglected, or abandoned and placed under the jurisdiction
of a juvenile court or placed with an individual or entity, to obtain
classification as Special Immigrant Juvenile. Such classification can
regularize immigration status for these aliens and allow for adjustment
of status to lawful permanent resident.
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 modern maritime environment. 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 2015
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
Inspection of Towing Vessels. The Coast Guard has proposed
regulations governing the inspection of towing vessels, including an
optional safety management system. The regulations for this large class
of vessels would establish operations, lifesaving, fire protection,
machinery and electrical systems and equipment, and construction and
arrangement standards for towing vessels. This rulemaking also sets
standards for the optional towing safety management system (TSMS) and
related third-party organizations, as well as procedures for obtaining
a certificate of inspection under either the TSMS or Coast Guard
annual-inspection option. This rulemaking would implement section 415
of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent
of this rulemaking, which would create 46 CFR, subchapter M, is to
promote safer work practices and reduce towing vessel casualties.
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--Reader
Requirements. In accordance with the Maritime Transportation Safety Act
of 2002 (MTSA) and the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act
of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), the Coast Guard is establishing rules
requiring electronic TWIC readers at high-risk vessels and facilities.
These rules would ensure that prior to being granted unescorted access
to a designated secure area at a high-risk vessel or facility: (1) The
individual will have his or her TWIC electronically authenticated; (2)
the status of the individual's credential will be electronically
validated against an up-to-date list maintained by the TSA; and (3) the
individual's identity will be electronically confirmed by comparing his
or her fingerprint or other biometric sample with a biometric template
stored on the credential. By promulgating these rules, the Coast Guard
is complying with the statutory requirement in the SAFE Port Act,
improving security at the highest risk vessels and facilities, and
making full use of the electronic and biometric security features
integrated into the TWIC and mandated by Congress in MTSA.
[[Page 77779]]
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
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 issue several rules during the next fiscal
year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of
entry. CBP is also automating some procedures that increase
efficiencies and reduce the costs and burdens to travelers. We have
highlighted two of these rules below.
Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS). The Trade Act of 2002, as
amended, authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to promulgate
regulations providing for the transmission to CBP through an electronic
data interchange system, of information pertaining to cargo to be
brought into the United States or to be sent from the United States,
prior to the arrival or departure of the cargo. The cargo information
required is that which the Secretary determines to be reasonably
necessary to ensure cargo safety and security. CBP's current Trade Act
regulations pertaining to air cargo require the electronic submission
of various advance data to CBP no later than either the time of
departure of the aircraft for the United States (from specified
locations) or four hours prior to arrival in the United States for all
other locations. CBP intends to propose amendments to these regulations
to implement the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) program. To improve
CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities and to enable CBP to
target and identify risky cargo prior to departure of the aircraft to
the United States, ACAS would require the submission of certain of the
advance electronic information for air cargo earlier in the process. In
most cases, the information would have to be submitted as early as
practicable but no later than prior to the loading of cargo onto an
aircraft at the last foreign port of departure to the United States.
CBP, in conjunction with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a voluntary
pilot program since 2010 and would like to implement ACAS as a
regulatory program.
Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format. DHS issues
the Form I-94 to certain aliens and uses the Form I-94 for various
purposes such as documenting status in the United States, the approved
length of stay, and departure. DHS generally issues the Form I-94 to
aliens at the time they lawfully enter the United States. On March 27,
2013, CBP published an interim final rule amending existing regulations
to add a new definition of the term ``Form I-94.'' The new definition
includes the collection of arrival/departure and admission or parole
information by DHS, whether in paper or electronic format. The
definition also clarified various terms that are associated with the
use of the Form I-94 to accommodate an electronic version of the Form
I-94. The rule also added a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission
or parole stamp in a foreign passport to the list of documents
designated as evidence of alien registration. These revisions enabled
DHS to transition to an automated process whereby DHS creates a Form I-
94 in an electronic format based on passenger, passport and visa
information that DHS obtains electronically from air and sea carriers
and the Department of State as well as through the inspection process.
CBP intends to publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's
mission, CBP also issues regulations related to the mission of the
Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including
functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto,
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the U.S. 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 2016, expects to continue to issue
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and
implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations regarding the customs
revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory Plan of the Department
of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
United States 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. Its
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 2016, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on
improvements in the area of student and exchange visitor programs and
to advance initiatives related to F-1 nonimmigrant students:
Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant
Students with STEM Degrees and Expanding Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1
[[Page 77780]]
Students With Pending H-1B Petitions. The Department of Homeland
Security will propose a rule to enhance opportunities for F-1
nonimmigrant students graduating with a science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree to further their courses of
study through an extension of optional practical training (OPT) with
employers enrolled in USCIS's E-Verify employment verification program.
DHS anticipates that the rule would replace a 2008 interim final rule
(IFR) that was recently held to be procedurally invalid, and that is
the subject of a temporarily stayed vacatur. The proposed rule would
enhance the academic benefit of the STEM extension and would help
ensure that the nation's colleges and universities remain globally
competitive in attracting international STEM students to study in the
United States prior to returning to their home countries.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is
a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of
life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance
the resilience of the nation's physical and cyber infrastructure.
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. Recognizing both the
importance of the nation's chemical facilities to the American way of
life and the need to secure high-risk chemical facilities against
terrorist attacks, in December 2014 Congress passed and the President
signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from
Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-254. This legislation
provides the Department continuing authority to implement the Chemical
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulatory program, a unique
regulatory program mandating that high-risk chemical facilities in the
United States draft and implement security plans satisfying risk-based
performance standards established by DHS.
CFATS has been in effect since 2007, and on August 18, 2014, the
Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
in order to seek public comment on ways to make the program more
effective. The Department will continue the rulemaking effort that
commenced with the publication of that ANPRM, and intends to publish a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a number of changes to
the CFATS program. The NPRM will propose substantive modifications to
CFATS based on public comments received on the ANPRM and based on
program implementation experience the Department has gained since 2007.
The NPRM will also propose modifications to CFATS in order to align its
regulatory text with the requirements of the Protecting and Securing
Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014. Accordingly,
the Department anticipates that the NPRM will propose both
discretionary and non-discretionary modifications to CFATS, with the
goals of harmonizing the regulation with its statutory authority and of
making the CFATS program more efficient and effective.
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 2016, TSA will promote the DHS mission by
emphasizing regulatory efforts that will 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.
Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA
intends to issue a final rule to amend its civil aviation regulations
to address whether screening and inspection of an individual, conducted
to control access to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft,
may include the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT). TSA published
an NPRM on March 26, 2013, to comply with the decision rendered by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security on July 15, 2011, (653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The
Court directed TSA to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking on the use
of AIT in the primary screening of passengers.
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, and
over-the-road bus operators to conduct security training for front line
employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 (Public
Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534 (Over-the-Road
Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, August 3, 2007. In compliance
with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions
of the 9/11 Act, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would propose
to define which employees are required to undergo training. The NPRM
would also propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive
materials, as required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees.
TSA is developing a proposed rule to establish and update fees, and
revise and standardize the procedures and adjudication criteria for
most of the security threat assessments (STAs) of individuals that TSA
conducts. The proposal would improve procedures for conducting STAs for
transportation workers from almost all modes of transportation,
including those covered under the 9/11 Act. In addition, TSA will
propose consistent and equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs.
TSA plans to identify new efficiencies in processing STAs and ways to
streamline existing regulations by simplifying language and removing
redundancies. As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions
to the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published
an IFR for the AFSP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations require
aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-regulated
flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA prior to
beginning flight training. There are four categories under which
students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student's
category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would improve
equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of new
technologies to support vetting.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2016
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise DHS's fall 2015 regulatory plan follows.
[[Page 77781]]
DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Proposed Rule Stage
49. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: sec 550 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 Pub. L. 109-295, as amended
CFR Citation: 6 CFR 27.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously
invited public comment on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) for potential revisions to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards (CFATS) regulations. The ANPRM provided an opportunity for
the public to provide recommendations for possible program changes. DHS
is reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM,
after which DHS intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Statement of Need: DHS intends to propose several potential program
changes to the CFATS regulation. These changes have been identified in
the five years since program implementation.
In addition, in December 2014, a new law (the Protecting and
Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014) was
enacted which provides DHS continuing authority to implement CFATS. DHS
must make several modifications and additions to conform the CFATS
regulation with the new law.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Protecting and Securing Chemical
Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-254) added
Title XXI to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) to authorize in
permanent law a Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS)
program. See 6 U.S.C. 621 et seq. Title XXI supersedes section 550 of
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L.
109-295, under which the CFATS program was originally established in
April 2007. Section 2107(a) of the HSA specifically authorizes DHS to
``promulgate regulations or amend existing CFATS regulations to
implement the provisions under [Title XXI]. 6 U.S.C. 627(a). In
addition, section 2107(b)(2) of the HSA requires DHS to repeal any
existing CFATS regulation that [DHS] determines is duplicative of, or
conflicts with, [Title XXI]. 6 U.S.C. 627(b)(2).
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The ANPRM provided an opportunity
for the public to provide recommendations for possible program changes.
DHS is reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM,
after which DHS intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/18/14 79 FR 48693
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/17/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren, Chief, Rulemaking Section, Department
of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate,
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (NPPD/ISCD), 245 Murray
Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610, Phone: 703 235-5263,
Fax: 703 603-4935, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1601-AA69
DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
50. Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T
and U Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 22 U.S.C.
7101; 22 U.S.C. 7105; Pub. L. 113-4
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of
severe forms of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status
and victims of certain qualifying criminal activity who have been
granted U nonimmigrant status may apply for adjustment of status to
lawful permanent resident 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 Nationality Act
(INA). The Violence Against Women's Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public
Law 113-4, made amendments to the T and U nonimmigrant status and the T
and U adjustment of status provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue a
proposed rule to propose the changes required by recent legislation.
Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in
lawful T or U nonimmigrant status, including derivatives, to apply for
adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent residents.
Summary of Legal Basis: 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 have assisted or 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 qualifying criminal activity crimes and have been, are being,
or are likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of
those crimes.
Alternatives: DHS 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: DHS uses fees to fund the cost of
processing applications and associated support benefits. In the 2008
interim final rule, DHS estimated the fee collection resulting from
this rule at 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. DHS is in the process of updating these cost
estimates.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued
assistance to trafficked and other qualifying crime victims and their
families, increased investigation and prosecution of traffickers in
persons and other qualifying crimes, and the elimination of abuses
caused by trafficking and criminal activities.
[[Page 77782]]
Risks: While there is a limit of 5,000 adjustments based on T
nonimmigrant status per fiscal year, there is no such limit on those
applying for adjustment based on U nonimmigrant status. Eligible
applicants for adjustment of status based on T nonimmigrant status will
be placed on a waiting list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS).
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 02/10/09 .......................
End.
NPRM................................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 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
51. New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1101 (note); 8 U.S.C. 1102; Pub. L. 113-4
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR
299.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes new application and eligibility
requirements for U 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 fiscal year. This rule would
propose to establish new procedures to be followed to petition for the
U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule would address
the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive the
nonimmigrant classification, procedures that must be followed to file a
petition and evidentiary guidance to assist in the petitioning process.
Eligible victims would be allowed to remain in the United States if
granted U nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, and the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013, Public Law 113-4,
made amendments to the U nonimmigrant status provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The Department of Homeland Security
had issued an interim final rule in 2007.
Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to allow alien
victims of certain crimes to petition for U nonimmigrant status. U
nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity who: (1) Have suffered substantial
physical or mental abuse as a result of the qualifying criminal
activity; (2) the alien possesses information about the crime; (3) the
alien has been, is being, or is likely to be helpful in the
investigation or prosecution of the crime; and (4) the criminal
activity took place in the United States, including military
installations and Indian country, or the territories or possessions of
the United States. This rule addresses the eligibility requirements
that must be met for classification as a U nonimmigrant alien and
implements statutory amendments to these requirements, streamlines the
procedures to petition for U nonimmigrant status, and provides
evidentiary guidance to assist in the petition process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant
classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
(BIWPA) to provide immigration relief for alien victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity and who are helpful to law enforcement in
the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.
Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and
services and keeping in mind the purpose of the U visa as a law
enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from
stakeholders in developing this regulation. These suggestions came in
the form of public comment from the 2007 interim final rule as well as
USCIS' six years of experience with the U nonimmigrant status program,
including regular meetings and outreach events with stakeholders and
law enforcement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimated the total annual cost
of the interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the interim
final rule published in 2007. This cost included the biometric services
fee, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the required forms,
the opportunity cost of time required and cost of traveling to visit a
USCIS Application Support Center. DHS is currently in the process of
updating our cost estimates since U nonimmigrant visa petitioners are
no longer required to pay the biometric services fee. The anticipated
benefits of these expenditures include assistance to victims of
qualifying criminal activity and their families and increases in
arrests and prosecutions of criminals nationwide. Additional benefits
include heightened awareness by law enforcement of victimization of
aliens in their community, and streamlining the petitioning process so
that victims may benefit from this immigration relief.
Risks: There is a statutory cap of 10,000 principal U nonimmigrant
visas that may be granted per fiscal year at 8 U.S.C. 1184(p)(2).
Eligible petitioners who are not granted principal U-1 nonimmigrant
status due solely to the numerical limit will be placed on a waiting
list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
To protect U-1 petitioners and their families, USCIS will use various
means to prevent the removal of U-1 petitioners and their eligible
family members on the waiting list, including exercising its authority
to allow deferred action, parole, and stays of removal, in cooperation
with other DHS components.
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 11/17/07 .......................
End.
NPRM................................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of
[[Page 77783]]
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of
Policy and Strategy, 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
52. Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8
U.S.C. 1254a; Pub. L. 110-229
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 207; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 244;
8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1240.
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 when the applicant's actions were
taken under duress.
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 when an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS believes
that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking and proposes to
amend the applicable regulations to set out its 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 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 goals tend to be
intangible and difficult to quantify in economic and monetary terms.
These forms of relief have not been available to individuals who
engaged in persecution of others under duress. 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................................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney, Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum
Law Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Chief Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 415 293-1244, Fax: 415 293-1269,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB89
DHS--USCIS
53. Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1304; 6 U.S.C. 112
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR
214; 8 CFR 245a; 8 CFR 320; 8 CFR 105 (new); . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule proposes to revise the requirements
and procedures for the filing of motions and appeals before the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), and its Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The
proposed changes are intended to streamline the existing processes for
filing motions and appeals and will reduce delays in the review and
appellate process. This rule also proposes additional changes
necessitated by the establishment of DHS and its components. The
proposed changes are intended to promote simplicity, accessibility, and
efficiency in the administration of USCIS appeals. The Department also
solicits public comment on proposed changes to the AAO's appellate
jurisdiction.
Statement of Need: This rule proposes to make numerous changes to
streamline the current appeal and motion processes which: (1) Will
result in cost savings to the Government, applicants, and petitioners;
and (2) will provide for a more efficient use of USCIS officer and
clerical staff time, as well as more uniformity with Board of
Immigration Appeals appeal and motion processes.
Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a;
8 U.S.C. 1101 and notes 1102, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 1185
note (sec 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229),
1186a, 1187, 1221,1223, 1225 to 1227, 1255a, and 1255a note, 1281,
1282, 1301 to 1305, 1324a, 1356, 1372, 1379, 1409(c), 1443 to 1444,
1448, 1452, 1455, 1641, 1731 to 1732; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1901,
1931 note; section 643, Public Law 104-208, 110, Stat. 3009-708;
section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated
States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with
the Government of Palau; title VII of Public Law 110-229; Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); Public Law 82-414, 66
Stat. 173, 238, 254, 264; title VII of Public Law 110-229; Executive
Order 12356.
Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue
under the current process without change.
[[Page 77784]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of streamlining the
appeal and motion process, DHS anticipates quantitative and qualitative
benefits to DHS and the public. We also anticipate cost savings to DHS
and applicants as a result of the proposed changes.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which
was withdrawn in 2007.
Agency Contact: Charles ``Locky'' Nimick, Deputy Chief, Department
of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Administrative Appeals Office, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20529-2090, Phone: 703 224-4501, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615-AB29
RIN: 1615-AB98
DHS--USCIS
54. Significant Public Benefit Parole for Entrepreneurs
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to
establish a program that would allow for consideration of parole into
the United States, on a case-by-case basis, of certain inventors,
researchers, and entrepreneurs who will establish a U.S. start-up
entity, and who have been awarded substantial U.S. investor financing
or otherwise hold the promise of innovation and job creation through
the development of new technologies or the pursuit of cutting edge
research. Based on investment, job-creation, and other factors, the
entrepreneur may be eligible for temporary parole.
Statement of Need: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
authorizes the Secretary, in the exercise of discretion, to parole
arriving aliens into the United States on a case-by-case basis for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. INA section
212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). No existing regulation explains how DHS
determines what provides a significant public benefit to the U.S.
economy. This regulation clarifies this standard with respect to
entrepreneur parolees.
This regulation focuses specifically on the significant economic
public benefit provided by foreign entrepreneurs because of the
particular benefit they bring to the U.S. economy. However, the full
potential of foreign entrepreneurs to benefit the U.S. economy is
limited by the fact that many foreign entrepreneurs do not qualify
under existing nonimmigrant and immigrant classifications. Given the
technical nature of entrepreneurship, and the limited guidance to date
on what constitutes a significant public benefit, DHS believes that it
is necessary to establish the conditions of such an economically-based
significant public benefit parole by regulation. Combined with a unique
application process, the goal is to ensure that the high standard set
by the statute authorizing significant public benefit parole is
uniformly met across adjudications.
In this rule, DHS is proposing to establish the conditions for
significant public benefit parole with respect to certain entrepreneurs
and start-up founders backed by U.S. investors or grants. DHS believes
that this proposal, once implemented, would encourage entrepreneurs to
create and develop start-up entities in the United States with high
growth potential to create jobs for U.S. workers and benefit the U.S.
economy. U.S. competitiveness would increase by attracting more
entrepreneurs to the United States. This proposal provides a fair,
transparent, and predictable framework by which DHS will exercise its
discretion to adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, such parole requests
under the existing statutory authority at INA section 212(d)(5), 8
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
Lastly, this proposed rule provides a pathway, based on authority
currently provided to the Secretary, for entrepreneurs to develop
businesses in the United States, create jobs for U.S. workers, and, at
the same time, establish a track record of experience and/or
accomplishments. Such a track record may lead to meeting eligibility
requirements for existing nonimmigrant or immigrant classifications.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary's authority for this proposed
regulatory amendment can be found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and INA
section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give the Secretary the authority to
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, as well as
INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), which refers to the
Secretary's discretionary authority to grant parole and provides DHS
with regulatory authority to establish terms and conditions for parole
once authorized.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimates the costs of the rule
are directly linked to the application fee and opportunity costs
associated with requesting significant public benefit parole. DHS does
not estimate there will be any negative impacts to the U.S. economy as
a result of this rule. Economic benefits can be expected from this
rule, because some number of new ventures and research endeavors will
be conducted in the United States that otherwise would not. It is
reasonable to assume that investment and research spending on new firms
associated with this proposed rule will directly and indirectly benefit
the U.S. economy and job creation. In addition, innovation and research
and development spending are likely to generate new patents and new
technologies, further enhancing innovation. Some portion of the
immigrant entrepreneurs likely to be attracted to this parole program
may develop high impact firms that can be expected to contribute
disproportionately to job creation.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, 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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC04
[[Page 77785]]
DHS--USCIS
55. Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program
Improvements Affecting Highly-Skilled H-1B Alien Workers
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1154 and 1155; 8 U.S.C.
1184; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204 to 205; 8 U.S.C. 214; 8 CFR 245; 8 CFR
274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to
amend its regulations affecting certain employment-based immigrant and
nonimmigrant classifications. This rule proposes to amend current
regulations to provide stability and job flexibility for the
beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions
while they wait to become lawful permanent residents. DHS is also
proposing to conform its regulations with the American Competitiveness
in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) as amended by the
Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization
Act (the 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act), as well as the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA). The rule
also seeks to clarify several interpretive questions raised by ACWIA
and AC21 regarding H-1B petitions, and incorporate relevant AC21 policy
memoranda and an Administrative Appeals Office precedent decision, and
would ensure that DHS practice is consistent with them.
Statement of Need: This rule provides needed stability and
flexibility to certain employment-based immigrants while they wait to
become lawful permanent residents. These amendments would support U.S.
employers by better enabling them to hire and retain highly skilled and
other foreign workers. DHS proposes to accomplish this, in part, by
implementing certain provisions of ACWIA and AC21, as amended by the
21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act. The 21st Century DOJ
Appropriations Authorization Act, which will impact certain foreign
nationals seeking permanent residency in the United States, as well as
H-1B workers. Further, by clarifying interpretive questions related to
these provisions, this rulemaking would ensure that DHS practice is
consistent with statute.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of the Secretary of Homeland
Security (Secretary) for these regulatory amendments can be found in
section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorize the Secretary
to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. In
pertinent part, ACWIA authorized the Secretary to impose a fee on
certain H-1B petitioners which would be used to train American workers,
and AC21 provides authority to increase access to foreign workers as
well as to train U.S. workers. In addition, section 274A(h)(3)(B) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the Secretary's authority
to extend employment to noncitizens in the United States, and section
205 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1155, recognizes the Secretary's authority to
exercise discretion in determining the revocability of any petition
approved by him under section 204 of the INA.
Alternatives: The alternative would be to continue under current
procedures without change.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed amendments would
increase the incentive of highly-skilled and other foreign workers who
have begun the immigration process to remain in and contribute to the
U.S. economy as they complete the process to adjust status to or
otherwise acquire lawful permanent resident status, thereby minimizing
disruptions to petitioning U.S. employers. Attracting and retaining
highly-skilled persons is important when considering the contributions
of these individuals to the U.S. economy, including advances in
entrepreneurial and research and development endeavors, which are
highly correlated with overall economic growth and job creation.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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: 1615-AB97 will be merged under this rule,
1615-AC05.
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Branch Chief, Business and Foreign
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Second Floor, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB97
RIN: 1615-AC05
DHS--USCIS
Final Rule Stage
56. Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 22 U.S.C. 7101; 22 U.S.C.
7105; Pub. L. 113-4
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR
299.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The T nonimmigrant classification was created by the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law
106-386. The 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 streamlines
application procedures and responsibilities for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and provides guidance to the public on how to
meet certain requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant status. Several
reauthorizations, including the Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2013, Public Law 113-4, have made amendments to the T
nonimmigrant status provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This rule implements those amendments.
Statement of Need: This rule addresses the essential elements that
must be demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien and
implements statutory amendments to these elements, streamlines the
procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant
status, and provides evidentiary guidance to assist in the application
process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 107(e) of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 Public Law 106-386, as
amended, established the T classification to provide immigration relief
for certain eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons
who assist law enforcement
[[Page 77786]]
authorities in investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators of these
crimes.
Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and
services, keeping in mind the purpose of the T visa to also serve as a
law enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from
stakeholders in developing this regulation. These suggestions came in
the form of public comment to the 2002 interim final rule, as well as
from over 10 years of experience with the T nonimmigrant status
program, including regular meetings with stakeholders and regular
outreach events.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Applicants for T nonimmigrant status
do not pay application or biometric fees. The anticipated benefits of
this rule include: Assistance to trafficked victims and their families;
an increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation
and/or prosecution of traffickers in persons; heightened awareness by
the law enforcement community of trafficking in persons; and
streamlining the application process for victims.
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 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, in cooperation with other DHS components.
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 04/01/02 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule.................. 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 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
57. Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note; 8 U.S.C.
1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and note; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C.
1187; 8 U.S.C. 1223; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 1227; 8
U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note; 8 U.S.C. 48; U.S.C. 1806; 8 U.S.C.
1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8
U.S.C. 1301 to 1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 104-208; Pub. L. 106-386;
Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of
Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note; Pub. L. 105-100;
Pub. L. 105-277; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.4(k)(1) and (2); 8 CFR 214.16(a), (b), (c)
and (d); 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1)(v) and (vi); 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(24); 8 CFR
1245.1(d)(1)(v), (vi), and (vii); 8 CFR 2.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated
Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008.
Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(CNRA), was enacted on May 8, 2008. Title VII of this statute extended
the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Abstract: This final rule amends the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to
comply with the CNRA. The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the
United States to the CNMI. This rule finalizes the interim rule and
implements conforming amendments to their respective regulations.
Statement of Need: This rule finalizes the interim rule to conform
existing regulations with the CNRA. Some of the changes implemented
under the CNRA affect existing regulations governing both DHS
immigration policy and procedures and proceedings before the
immigration judges and the Board. Accordingly, it is necessary to make
amendments both to the DHS regulations and to the DOJ regulations. The
Secretary and the Attorney General are making conforming amendments to
their respective regulations in this single rulemaking document.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress extended the immigration laws of
the United States to the CNMI. The stated purpose of the CNRA is to
ensure effective border control procedures, to properly address
national security and homeland security concerns by extending U.S.
immigration law to the CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI's nonresident
contract worker program while minimizing to the greatest extent
practicable the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of that
phase-out), to maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and
business growth, and to assure worker protections from the potential
for abuse and exploitation.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: The interim rule established
basic provisions necessary for the application of the INA to the CNMI
and updated definitions and existing DHS and DOJ regulations in areas
that were confusing or in conflict with how they are to be applied to
implement the INA in the CNMI. As such, that rule made no changes that
had identifiable direct or indirect economic impacts that could be
quantified. Benefits: This final rule makes regulatory changes in order
to lessen the adverse impacts of the CNRA on employers and employees in
the CNMI and assist the CNMI in its transition to the INA.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 10/28/09 74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/27/09 .......................
End.
Correction.......................... 12/22/09 74 FR 67969
Final Action........................ 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: CIS 2460-08.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, 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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202
272-
[[Page 77787]]
1480, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB76, Related to 1615-AB75
RIN: 1615-AB77
DHS--USCIS
58. Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8
U.S.C. 1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 245.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its
regulations governing the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ)
classification and related applications for adjustment of status to
permanent resident. Special Immigrant Juvenile classification is a
humanitarian-based immigration protection for children who cannot be
reunified with one or both parents because of abuse, neglect,
abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law. This final rule
implements updates to eligibility requirements and other changes made
by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub.
L. 110-457. DHS received comments on the proposed rule in 2011 and
intends to issue a final rule in the coming year.
Statement of Need: This rule would address the eligibility
requirements that must be met for SIJ classification and related
adjustment of status, implement statutory amendments to these
requirements, and provide procedural and evidentiary guidance to assist
in the petition process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the SIJ classification
in the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT). The 1998 Appropriations Act
amended the SIJ classification by limiting eligibility to children
declared dependent on a juvenile court because of abuse, abandonment,
or neglect and creating consent functions. The Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made many changes to the SIJ
classification including: (1) Creating a requirement that the
petitioner's reunification with one or both parents not be viable due
to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis under State law; (2)
expanding the population of children who may be eligible to include
those placed by a juvenile court with an individual or entity; (3)
modifying the consent functions; (4) providing age-out protection; and
(5) creating a timeframe for adjudications.
Alternatives: DHS is considering and using suggestions from
stakeholders to keep in mind the vulnerable nature of abused, abandoned
and neglected children in developing this regulation. These suggestions
came in the form of public comment from the 2011 proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 2011 proposed rule, DHS
estimated there would be no additional regulatory compliance costs for
petitioning individuals or any program costs for the Government as a
result of the proposed amendments. Qualitatively, DHS estimated that
the proposed rule would codify the practices and procedures currently
implemented via internal policy directives issued by USCIS, thereby
establishing clear guidance for petitioners. DHS is currently in the
process of updating our final cost and benefit estimates.
Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents
significant risk 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................................ 09/06/11 76 FR 54978
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/07/11 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB81
DHS--USCIS
59. Enhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and
EB-1 Immigrants
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8
U.S.C. 1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C.
1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1641; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8
U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301-1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 104-
208, sec 643; Pub. L. 106-386; Compacts of Free Association with the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Marshall Islands,
and with the Government of Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931
note; Pub. L. 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1258; 8 U.S.C. 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8
U.S.C. 1102
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(ii)-(iv); 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1); 8 CFR
248.3(a); 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(9), (b)(20), (b)(23)-(25); 8 CFR 2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is updating the
regulations to include nonimmigrant high-skilled specialty occupation
professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E-3)
in the list of classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to
status with a specific employer, to clarify that H-1B1 and principal E-
3 nonimmigrants are allowed to work without having to separately apply
to DHS for employment authorization. DHS is also amending the
regulations to provide authorization for continued employment with the
same employer if the employer has timely filed for an extension of the
nonimmigrant's stay. DHS is also providing for this same continued work
authorization for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)--
Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) nonimmigrants if a Petition for a CNMI-
Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form I-129CW, is timely filed to
apply for an extension of stay. In addition, DHS is updating the
regulations describing the filing procedures for extensions of stay and
change of status requests to include the principal E-3 and H-1B1
nonimmigrant classifications. These changes harmonize the regulations
for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications with existing
regulations for other, similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications.
Finally, DHS is expanding the current list of evidentiary criteria for
employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors and
researchers to allow the submission of evidence comparable to the other
forms of evidence already listed in the regulations. This harmonizes
the regulations for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with
other employment-based immigrant categories that already allow for
submission of
[[Page 77788]]
comparable evidence. DHS is amending the regulations to benefit these
high-skilled workers and CW-1 transitional workers by removing
unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when
compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.
Statement of Need: As proposed, this rule would improve the
programs serving the E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications
and the EB-1 immigrant classification for outstanding professors and
researchers. The proposed changes harmonize the regulations governing
these classifications with regulations governing similar visa
classifications by removing unnecessary hurdles that place E-3, H-1B1,
CW-1 and certain EB-1 workers at a disadvantage.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112,
and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), charge the
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) with administration and
enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws. See INA section
103, 8 U.S.C. 1103.
Alternatives: A number of the changes are part of DHS's
Retrospective Review Plan for Existing Regulations. During development
of DHS's Retrospective Review Plan, DHS received a comment from the
public requesting specific changes to the DHS regulations that govern
continued work authorization for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants when an
extension of status petition is timely filed, and to expand the types
of evidence allowable in support of immigrant petitions for outstanding
researchers or professors. This rule is responsive to that comment, and
with the retrospective review principles of Executive Order 13563.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The E-3 and H-1B1 provisions do not
impose any additional costs on petitioning employers, individuals or
Government entities, including the Federal government. The regulatory
amendments provide equity for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants relative to
other employment-based nonimmigrants listed in 8 CFR 274a.12.(b)(20).
This provision may also allow employers of E-3 or H-1B1 nonimmigrant
workers to avoid the cost of lost productivity resulting from
interruptions of work while an extension of stay petition is pending.
The regulatory changes that clarify principal E-3 and H-1B1
nonimmigrant classifications are employment authorized incident to
status with a specific employer and that these nonimmigrant
classifications must file a petition with USCIS to make an extension of
stay or change of status request, simply codify current practice and
impose no additional costs. Likewise, the regulatory amendments
governing CW-1 nonimmigrants would not impose any additional costs for
petitioning employers or for CW-1 nonimmigrant workers. The benefits of
the rule are to provide equity for CW-1 nonimmigrant workers whose
extension of stay request is filed by the same employer relative to
other CW-1 nonimmigrant workers. Additionally, this provision mitigates
any potential distortion in the labor market for employers of CW-1
nonimmigrant workers created by current inconsistent regulatory
provisions which currently offer an incentive to file for extensions of
stay with new employers rather than current employers. The portion of
the rule addressing the evidentiary requirements for the EB-1
outstanding professor and researcher employment-based immigrant
classification allows for the submission of comparable evidence
(achievements not listed in the criteria such as important patents or
prestigious, peer-reviewed funding grants) for that listed in 8 CFR
204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) through (F) to establish that the EB-1 professor or
researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in his or her
academic field. Harmonizing the evidentiary requirements for EB-1
outstanding professors and researchers with other comparable
employment-based immigrant classifications provides equity for EB-1
outstanding professors and researchers relative to those other
employment-based visa categories.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/12/14 79 FR 26870
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/11/14 .......................
Final Action........................ 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
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: Includes Retrospective Review under
Executive Order 13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, 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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC00
DHS--USCIS
60. Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of
Inadmissibility
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.7.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its
regulations to expand eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence
waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility based on the accrual of
unlawful presence to all aliens who are statutorily eligible for a
waiver of such grounds, are seeking such a waiver in connection with an
immigrant visa application, and meet other conditions. In relation to
the statutory requirement that a waiver applicant must demonstrate that
the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to a
qualifying relative, DHS is eliminating the restrictions currently
contained in the provisional unlawful presence regulation that limits
the qualifying relative to U.S. citizen spouses and parents. This rule
permits an applicant for a provisional waiver to establish the
eligibility requirement of showing extreme hardship to any qualifying
relative named in the statutory waiver provision namely a U.S. citizen
or lawful permanent resident spouses and parents.
Statement of Need: Currently, DHS allows certain immediate
relatives who are in the United States to request a provisional
unlawful presence waiver before departing for consular processing of
their immigrant visas. Currently, this waiver process is only available
to those immediate relatives whose sole ground of inadmissibility would
be unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) and who can demonstrate that the denial of
the waiver would result in extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen
spouse or parent.
All other aliens seeking an immigrant visa through consular process
who require a waiver of inadmissibility to
[[Page 77789]]
overcome the bars in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) must file the waiver
at the end of the consular processing and after the consular immigrant
visa interview. Obtaining the waiver through this process can be
lengthy. These aliens typically have to wait abroad for at least
several months for a decision on their waiver applications and until a
visa can be issued. During this period, applicants must endure
separation from the U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident family
members in the United States, which, in turn, often results in
emotional and financial hardships to some U.S. citizens, lawful
permanent residents, and their families. Inefficiencies in this waiver
process also create costs for the Federal Government.
As proposed, USCIS may grant a provisional unlawful presence waiver
to aliens if they are statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and
for a waiver of inadmissibility based on unlawful presence. As
proposed, this rule also would expand who may be considered a
qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination
to include lawful permanent resident spouses and parents. The changes
are made in the interest of family unity and customer service. This
rule also removes from the affected regulations all unnecessary
procedural instructions regarding office names and locations, position
titles and responsibilities, and form numbers. These instructions are
often unnecessary, and unrestricted USCIS' ability to better utilize
its resources and serve its customers.
Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304,
1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107296, 116 Stat. 2135; 6 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.; E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR
part 2; Public Law 11254. 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and
note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185
note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108458); 8 CFR part 2. Section 212.1(q)
also issued under section 702, Public Law 110229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.
Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue
under the current process without change.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of expanding the
population of aliens who would benefit from a streamlined immigrant
visa process, DHS believes that both the affected population and the
Federal Government will benefit. In addition to reducing the emotional
hardship that U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident families
experience as a result of separation from their alien relatives, DHS
anticipates these families would experience fewer financial burdens
associated with traveling abroad. Finally, this rule would increase
USCIS and DOS efficiencies by streamlining the waiver process for
unlawful presence for the expanded group.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/22/15 80 FR 43338
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/21/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB99
RIN: 1615-AC03
DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)
Final Rule Stage
61. Inspection of Towing Vessels
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103; 46 U.S.C. 3301; 46 U.S.C. 3306; 46
U.S.C. 3308; 46 U.S.C. 3316; 46 U.S.C. 3703; 46 U.S.C. 8104; 46 U.S.C.
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. Final,
Statutory, October 15, 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 section 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. 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 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. 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
[[Page 77790]]
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, as a result of
this rulemaking, owners and operators of towing vessels would incur
additional annualized costs, discounted at 7 percent, in the range of
$14.3 million to $17.1 million. 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.
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. We estimate an annualized benefit of $28.5 million from
this rule.
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................................ 08/11/11 76 FR 49976
Notice of Public Meetings........... 09/09/11 76 FR 55847
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/09/11 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2006-24412.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: LCDR William Nabach, Project Manager, Office of
Operating & Environmental Standards, CG-OES-2, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE.,
STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, Phone: 202 372-1386, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1625-AB06
DHS--USCG
62. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader
Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 701; 50
U.S.C. 191; 50 U.S.C. 192; E.O. 12656
CFR Citation: 33 CFR, subchapter H.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 20, 2010, SAFE Port Act,
codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(k). The final rule is required two years
after the commencement of the pilot program.
The final rule is required two years after the commencement of the
pilot program.
Abstract: The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader
requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in
combination with TSA's Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC). Congress enacted several statutory requirements within the
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 to guide
regulations pertaining to TWIC readers, including the need to evaluate
TSA's final pilot program report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking.
During the rulemaking process, we will take into account the final
pilot data and the various conditions in which TWIC readers may be
employed. For example, we will consider the types of vessels and
facilities that will use TWIC readers, locations of secure and
restricted areas, operational constraints, and need for accessibility.
Recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, and the
requirement for data exchanges (i.e., Canceled Card List) between TSA
and vessel or facility owners/operators will also be addressed in this
rulemaking.
Statement of Need: The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
of 2002 explicitly required the issuance of a biometric transportation
security card to all U.S. merchant mariners and to workers requiring
unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated facilities and
vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) and the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where TSA conducts security
threat assessments and issues identification credentials, while the
Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC into the access control
systems of vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities.
Based on comments received during the public comment period, TSA and
the Coast Guard split the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, published in
January 2007, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC as
a visual identification credential at access control points. In an
ANPRM, published in March 2009, and a NPRM, published in March 2013,
the Coast Guard proposed a risk-based approach to TWIC reader
requirements and included proposals to classify MTSA-regulated vessels
and facilities into one of three risk groups, based on specific factors
related to TSI consequence, and apply TWIC reader requirements for
vessels and facilities in conjunction with their relative risk-group
placement. This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port
Act and to complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our
ports. By requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities,
the Coast Guard will further enhance port security and improve access
control measures.
Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authorities for the Coast
Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations are
provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C.
191, 192; Executive Order
[[Page 77791]]
12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16,
and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Alternatives: The implementation of TWIC reader requirements is
mandated by the SAFE Port Act. We considered several alternatives in
the formulation of this proposal. These alternatives were based on risk
analysis of different combinations of facility and vessel populations
facing TWIC reader requirements. The preferred alternative selected
allowed the Coast Guard to target the highest risk entities while
minimizing the overall burden.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this rule
are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the
maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Initial costs,
which we would distribute over a phased-in implementation period,
consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate
approved TWIC readers into their current physical access control
system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with
canceled card list updates, opportunity costs associated with delays
and replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the
affected entity's TWIC reader system. As reported in the NPRM
Regulatory Analysis, the total 10-year total industry and government
cost for the TWIC is $234.3 million undiscounted and $186.1 discounted
at 7 percent. We estimate the annualized cost of this rule to industry
to be $26.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The benefits of the
rulemaking include the enhancement of the security of vessel ports and
other facilities by ensuring that only individuals who hold valid TWICs
are granted unescorted access to secure areas at those locations.
Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this
rulemaking. Based on this analysis, the Coast Guard has proposed
requiring higher-risk vessels and facilities to meet the requirements
for electronic TWIC inspection, while continuing to allow lower-risk
vessels and facilities to use TWIC as a visual identification
credential.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 03/27/09 74 FR 13360
Notice of Public Meeting............ 04/15/09 74 FR 17444
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 05/26/09 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting Comment 05/26/09 .......................
Period End.
NPRM................................ 03/22/13 78 FR 20558
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/10/13 78 FR 27335
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 06/20/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2007-28915.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: LT Mason Wilcox, Project Manager, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant (CG-FAC-2), 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501,
Phone: 202 372-1123, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02
RIN: 1625-AB21
DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)
Proposed Rule Stage
63. Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2071 note
CFR Citation: 19 CFR 122.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to
amend the implementing regulations of the Trade Act of 2002 regarding
the submission of advance electronic information for air cargo and
other provisions to provide for the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
program. ACAS would require the submission of certain advance
electronic information for air cargo. This will allow CBP to better
target and identify dangerous cargo and ensure that any risk associated
with such cargo is mitigated before the aircraft departs for the United
States. CBP, in conjunction with Transportation Security
Administration, has been operating ACAS as a voluntary pilot program
since 2010 and would like to implement ACAS as a regulatory program.
Statement of Need: DHS has identified an elevated risk associated
with cargo being transported to the United States by air. This rule
will help address this risk by giving DHS the data it needs to improve
targeting of the cargo prior to takeoff.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives: In addition to the proposed rule, CBP analyzed two
alternatives--Requiring the data elements to be transmitted to CBP
further in advance than the proposed rule requires; and requiring fewer
data elements. CBP concluded that the proposal rule provides the most
favorable balance between security outcomes and impacts to air
transportation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To improve CBP's risk assessment and
targeting capabilities and to enable CBP to target and identify risk
cargo prior to departure of the aircraft to the United States, ACAS
would require the submission of certain of the advance electronic
information for air cargo earlier in the process. In most cases, the
information would have to be submitted as early as practicable, but no
later than prior to the loading of cargo onto an aircraft at the last
foreign port of departure to the United States. CBP, in conjunction
with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a voluntary pilot program since
2010. CBP believes this pilot program has proven successful by not only
mitigating risks to the United States, but also minimizing costs to the
private sector. As such, CBP is proposing to transition the ACAS pilot
program into a permanent program. Costs of this program to carriers
include one-time costs to upgrade systems to facilitate transmission of
these data to CBP and recurring per transmission costs. Benefits of the
program include improved security that will result from having these
data further in advance.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Craig Clark, Program Manager, Vessel Manifest &
Importer Security Filing, Office of Cargo and Conveyance Security,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229,
[[Page 77792]]
Phone: 202 344-3052, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AB04
DHS--USCBP
Final Rule Stage
64. Definition of Form I-94 To Include Electronic Format
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1301; 8 U.S.C. 1303 to 1305; 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 107-296, 116
stat 2135; 6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1.4; 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Form I-94 is issued to certain aliens upon arrival in
the United States or when changing status in the United States. The
Form I-94 is used to document arrival and departure and provides
evidence of the terms of admission or parole. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) is transitioning to an automated process whereby it
will create a Form I-94 in an electronic format based on passenger,
passport, and visa information currently obtained electronically from
air and sea carriers and the Department of State as well as through the
inspection process. Prior to this rule, the Form I-94 was solely a
paper form that was completed by the alien upon arrival. After the
implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)
following 9/11, CBP began collecting information on aliens traveling by
air or sea to the United States electronically from carriers in advance
of arrival. For aliens arriving in the United States by air or sea, CBP
obtains almost all of the information contained on the paper Form I-94
electronically and in advance via APIS. The few fields on the Form I-94
that are not collected via APIS are either already collected by the
Department of State and transmitted to CBP or can be collected by the
CBP officer from the individual at the time of inspection. This means
that CBP no longer needs to collect Form I-94 information as a matter
of course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or
sea. At this time, the automated process will apply only to aliens
arriving at air and sea ports of entry.
Statement of Need: This rule makes the necessary changes to the
regulations to enable CBP to transition to an automated process whereby
CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 based on the information in its
databases.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 103(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish such regulations and prescribe such forms of
reports, entries, and other papers necessary to carry out his or her
authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality
laws and to guard the borders of the United States against illegal
entry of aliens.
Alternatives: CBP considered two alternatives to this rule:
eliminating the paper Form I-94 in the air and sea environments
entirely and providing the paper Form I-94 to all travelers who are not
B-1/B-2 travelers. Eliminating the paper Form I-94 option for refugees,
applicants for asylum, parolees, and those travelers who request one
would not result in a significant cost savings to CBP and would harm
travelers who have an immediate need for an electronic Form I-94 or who
face obstacles to accessing their electronic Form I-94. A second
alternative to the rule is to provide a paper Form I-94 to any
travelers who are not B-1/B-2 travelers. Under this alternative,
travelers would receive and complete the paper Form I- 94 during their
inspection when they arrive in the United States. The electronic Form
I-94 would still be automatically created during the inspection, but
the CBP officer would need to verify that the information appearing on
the form matches the information in CBP's systems. In addition, CBP
would need to write the Form I-94 number on each paper Form I-94 so
that their paper form matches the electronic record. As noted in the
analysis, 25.1 percent of aliens are non-B-1/B-2 travelers. Filling out
and processing this many paper Forms I-94 at airports and seaports
would increase processing times considerably. At the same time, it
would only provide a small savings to the individual traveler.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With the implementation of this
rule, CBP will no longer collect Form I-94 information as a matter of
course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or
sea. Instead, CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 for foreign
travelers based on the information in its databases. This rule makes
the necessary changes to the regulations to enable CBP to transition to
an automated process. Both CBP and aliens would bear costs as a result
of this rule. CBP would bear costs to link its data systems and to
build a Web site so aliens can access their electronic Forms I-94. CBP
estimates that the total cost for CBP to link data systems, develop a
secure Web site, and fully automate the Form I-94 fully will equal
about $1.3 million in calendar year 2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09
million in subsequent years to operate and maintain these systems.
Aliens arriving as diplomats and students would bear costs when logging
into the Web site and printing electronic I-94s. The temporary workers
and aliens in the ''Other/Unknown'' category bear costs when logging
into the Web site, traveling to a location with public internet access,
and printing a paper copy of their electronic Form I-94. Using the
primary estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would bear
costs between $36.6 million and $46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total
costs for this rule for 2013 would range from $34.2 million to $40.1
million, with a primary estimate of costs equal to $36.7 million. CBP,
carriers, and foreign travelers would accrue benefits as a result of
this rule. CBP would save contract and printing costs of $15.6 million
per year of our analysis. Carriers would save a total of $1.3 million
in printing costs per year. All aliens would save the eight-minute time
burden for filling out the paper Form I-94 and certain aliens who lose
the Form I-94 would save the $330 fee and 25-minute time burden for
filling out the Form I-102. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's
value of time, aliens would obtain benefits between $112.6 million and
$141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. Total benefits for this rule for 2013
would range from $110.7 million to $155.6 million, with a primary
estimate of benefits equal to $129.5 million. Overall, this rule
results in substantial cost savings (benefits) for foreign travelers,
carriers, and CBP. CBP anticipates a net benefit in 2013 of between
$59.7 million and $98.7 million for foreign travelers, $1.3 million for
carriers, and $15.5 million for CBP. Net benefits to U.S. entities
(carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8 million. CBP anticipates the
total net benefits to both domestic and foreign entities in 2013 range
from $76.5 million to $115.5 million. In our primary analysis, the
total net benefits are $92.8 million in 2013. For the primary estimate,
annualized net benefits range from $78.1 million to $80.0 million,
depending on the discount rate used. More information on costs and
benefits can be found in the interim final rule.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 03/27/13 78 FR 18457
[[Page 77793]]
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/26/13 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/26/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, Director, Electronic System for
Travel Authorization, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229,
Phone: 202 344-2073, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AA96
DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
65. Security Training for Surface Mode Employees
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1408, 1517,
and 1534
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582
(new); 49 CFR 1584 (new).
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule
for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of
enactment.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation
agencies is due one year after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses is due six months after date of enactment.
According to sec 1408 of Pub. L. 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 sec 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for
railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after
the date of enactment.
Abstract: This rule would require security awareness training for
front-line employees for potential terrorism-related security threats
and conditions pursuant to the 9/11 Act. This rule would apply to
higher-risk public transportation, freight rail, and over-the-road bus
owner/operators and take into consideration the many actions higher-
risk owner/operators have already taken since 9/11 to enhance the
baseline of security through training of their employees. The
rulemaking will also propose extending security coordinator and
reporting security incident requirements applicable to rail operators
under current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail transportation
components of covered public transportation agencies and over-the-road
buses.
Statement of Need: Employee training is an important and effective
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those with
malicious intent who may target surface transportation and plan or
perpetrate actions that may cause significant injuries, loss of life,
or economic disruption.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and
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 training programs for these owner/operators. As part
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on
the alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the
requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process of determining
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
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................................ 09/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local.
Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface
Division, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, Department
of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145, Fax: 571
227-2935, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329,
Email: [email protected].
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel for Multi-Modal Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3596, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged
with 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA55
DHS--TSA
Final Rule Stage
66. Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44925
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1540.107.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends
to issue a final rule to address whether screening and inspection of an
individual, conducted to control access to the sterile area of an
airport or to an aircraft, may include the use of advanced imaging
technology (AIT). The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was
published on March 26, 2013, to comply with the decision rendered by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The
Court directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use
of AIT in the primary screening of passengers.
Statement of Need: TSA is issuing this rulemaking to respond to the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Summary of Legal Basis: In its decision in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit found
[[Page 77794]]
that TSA failed to justify its failure to conduct notice and comment
rulemaking and remanded to TSA for further proceedings.
Alternatives: As alternatives to the preferred regulatory proposal
presented in the NPRM, TSA examined three other options. These
alternatives include a continuation of the screening environment prior
to 2008 (no action), increased use of physical pat-down searches that
supplements primary screening with walk through metal detectors
(WTMDs), and increased use of explosive trace detection (ETD) screening
that supplements primary screening with WTMDs. These alternatives, and
the reasons why TSA rejected them in favor of the proposed rule, are
discussed in detail in chapter 3 of the AIT NPRM regulatory evaluation
impact analysis.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA reports in the NPRM that the net
cost of AIT deployment from 2008-2011 has been $841.2 million
(undiscounted) and that TSA has borne over 99 percent of all costs
related to AIT deployment. TSA projects that from 2012-2015 net AIT
related costs will be approximately $1.5 billion (undiscounted), $1.4
billion at a three percent discount rate, and $1.3 billion at a seven
percent discount rate. During 2012-2015, TSA estimates it will also
incur over 98 percent of AIT-related costs with equipment and personnel
costs being the largest categories of expenditures. The operations
described in this rule produce benefits by reducing security risks
through the deployment of AIT that is capable of detecting both
metallic and non-metallic weapons and explosives. Terrorists continue
to test security measures in an attempt to find and exploit
vulnerabilities. The threat to aviation security has evolved to include
the use of non-metallic explosives. AIT is a proven technology based on
laboratory testing and field experience and is an essential component
of TSA's security screening because it provides the best opportunity to
detect metallic and nonmetallic anomalies concealed under clothing.
More information about costs and benefits can be found in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. TSA is in the process of determining the costs and
benefits of the final rule.
Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By screening
passengers with AIT, TSA will reduce the risk that a terrorist will
smuggle a non-metallic threat on board an aircraft.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/26/13 78 FR 18287
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/24/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Chawanna Carrington, Project Manager, Passenger
Screening Program, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Security Capabilities, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6016, Phone: 571 227-2958, Fax: 571
227-1931, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329,
Email: [email protected].
Linda L. Kent, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2675, Fax: 571 227-1381,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1652-AA67
DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)
Proposed Rule Stage
67. Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant
Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1
Students With Pending H-1B Petitions
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8
U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281 and 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1302 to
1305
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security is proposing a new
rule to enhance opportunities for F-1 nonimmigrant students graduating
with a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree
from an accredited school certified by U.S. Immigration and Custom
Enforcement (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), and to
further their courses of study through optional practical training
(OPT) with employers enrolled in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program. The
proposed rule would replace a 2008 interim final rule (IFR) that was
invalidated and will be vacated on February 12, 2016, per a ruling by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 12,
2015, in the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. U.S.
Department of Homeland Security litigation.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would enhance the academic
experience of STEM OPT students, increase the overall competitiveness
of U.S. educational institutions, and provide important benefits to the
U.S. economy.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/19/15 80 FR 63375
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/18/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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: Katherine H. Westerlund, Acting Unit 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., STOP 5600, Washington, DC 20536-5600,
Phone: 703 603-3400, Email: [email protected];
Molly Stubbs, ICE Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of the
Director, PTN--Potomac Center North, 500 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-6202, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA72
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
[[Page 77795]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Introduction--HUD's Mission
Secretary Juli[aacute]n Castro has called the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) the Department of Opportunity because of
the unique impact it can make on the lives of Americans. As Secretary
Castro has noted, where people live shapes how they live--the types and
number of available jobs, the quality of the education their children
receive, and the overall quality of life.\1\ Although one of HUD's core
objectives is to help families secure quality, affordable housing, its
mission is much broader. HUD celebrated the 50th anniversary of its
establishment in September 2015. President Lyndon Johnson, in his
remarks on the passage of the legislation in 1965 establishing HUD,
provided a clear and succinct statement of the objectives for the new
Department: ``to make sure that every family in America lives in a home
of dignity and a neighborhood of pride, a community of opportunity, and
a city of promise and hope.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Secretary Juli[aacute]n Castro, Remarks to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, ``A Year of Progress: Building a
Stronger HUD for the Next 50 Years'' (July 27, 2015). See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/speeches_remarks_statements/2015/Remarks_072715.
\2\ President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Remarks upon Enactment of
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (April 10, 1965).
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/mediakits/hud/p6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In brief, HUD's mission is to provide families and communities with
the tools to build a brighter future. Consistent with this vision, HUD
programs impact small towns, big cities, rural communities, and tribal
communities across the country. 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.
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
This Statement of Regulatory Priorities, together with HUD's Fall
Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, highlights the most significant
regulatory and deregulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete
during the upcoming fiscal year.
As noted in the Introduction, a central feature of HUD's mission is
to use housing as a platform for improving quality of life. HUD housing
serves at least two broad populations: people who are in a position to
markedly increase their self-sufficiency and people who will need long-
term support (for example, the frail elderly and people with severe
disabilities). For those individuals who are able, increasing self-
sufficiency requires access to life-skills training, wealth-creation
and asset-building opportunities, job training, and career services.
Knowledge is one pillar to achieving self-sufficiency and the
American Dream--a catalyst for upward mobility, as well as an
investment that ensures each generation is, at least, as successful as
the last. The adoption, associated programming, and use of broadband
technology are powerful tools to increase access to knowledge; however,
there is a ``digital divide'' in this nation between those with
broadband Internet access and those without it.
This Statement of Regulatory Priorities highlights two rules that
will focus on narrowing the digital divide in low-income communities
served by HUD.
Regulatory Priority: Narrowing the Digital Divide in HUD Communities
On March 23, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum
on ``Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing
Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.'' \3\ In
this memorandum, the President noted that access to high-speed
broadband is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for American families,
businesses, and consumers. Mobile wireless access to the Internet, such
as provided through smartphone, is an insufficient alternative to
broadband connectivity. Such wireless access provides lower connection
speeds and lesser functionality for the full range of household uses
(such as word processing and other software) compared to place-based
broadband Internet connection. The President further noted that the
Federal government has an important role to play in developing
coordinated policies to promote broadband deployment and adoption,
including promoting best practices, breaking down regulatory barriers,
and encouraging further investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/presidential-memorandum-expanding-broadband-deployment-and-adoption-addr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2015, HUD launched its Digital Opportunity
Demonstration, known as ``ConnectHome,'' in which HUD provided a
platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing
agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations,
nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to work
together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in
communities served by HUD across the nation. The demonstration, or
pilot as it is also called, commenced with the participation of 28
communities. Through contributions made by the Internet service
providers and other participating organizations, these 28 communities
will benefit from the ConnectHome collaboration by receiving, for the
residents living in HUD public and assisted housing in these
communities, broadband infrastructure, literacy training, related
content, and devices that provide for accessing high-speed Internet.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://connecthome.hud.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of all Americans having access to the Internet
cannot be overstated. As HUD stated in its announcement of the Digital
Opportunity Demonstration, published in the Federal Register on April
3, 2015, at 80 FR 18248, many low-income Americans do not have
broadband Internet at home, contributing to the estimated 66 million
Americans who are without the most basic digital literacy skills. It is
for these reasons that HUD is exploring ways beyond ConnectHome, to
narrow the digital divide for the low-income individuals and families
served by HUD multifamily rental housing programs.
The following two rules featured in this Regulatory Plan are part
of this effort.
Narrowing the Digital Divide through Broadband
Installation in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial
Rehabilitation
Narrowing the Digital Divide through Community Planning:
Integrating Broadband Access Planning into HUD's Consolidated Planning
Process
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
pursued in FY 2016. HUD expects that the neither the total economic
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
[[Page 77796]]
Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Broadband Installation in HUD-
Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation
HUD Office: Office of the Secretary.
Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule.
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q and 4568; 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c,
1437d, 1437f, 1437g, 1437n, 1437z-2, 1437z-7, 3535(d), 5301-5320, 8013,
11371 et seq., 12701-12839, 12901-12912, 13611-13619; sec 327, Pub. L.
109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and sec 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 3051
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 92, 93, 570, 574, 578, 880, 891, 905, and
983.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to
narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD by
providing broadband access to communities in need of such access, where
feasible and under HUD programs that authorize use of HUD funds for
such purpose. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. In this rule, HUD proposes
to require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new
construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental
housing that is funded by HUD. Installation of broadband infrastructure
at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation is
generally easier and less costly than when such installation is
undertaken as a stand-alone effort. The proposed rule, however,
recognizes that installation of broadband infrastructure may not be
feasible for all new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and
therefore the proposed rule allows limited exceptions to the
installation requirements. Installing unit-based high-speed Internet in
multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed or substantially
rehabilitated with HUD funding will not only expand affordable housing
for low-income families but will provide a platform for individuals and
families residing in such housing to participate in the digital economy
and increase their access to economic opportunities.
Statement of Need
The proposed rule is part of several mutually supportive efforts
being taken by the Administration to close the digital divide for low-
income communities. As noted above, many low-income Americans do not
have broadband Internet at home. Given the populations impacted by the
digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of implementing these
Administration efforts. The digital divide in broadband access,
connectivity, and use disproportionately affects certain Americans:
Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; individuals who did not
finish high school; and African Americans and Hispanics. Eighty-four
percent of households with HUD assistance make less than $20,000 per
year, and 63 percent are African American or Hispanic (46 percent and
17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-assisted household, 38 percent
have children who are 18 years or younger. The proposed rule will build
on the success of ConnectHome by ensuring that when construction or
significant rehabilitation is done using HUD funds, the infrastructure
needed for broadband access is included in the work.
Alternatives: Construction and rehabilitation standards are
regulatory in nature, so amending them to require the installation of
broadband infrastructure requires rulemaking. Without amending the
construction and rehabilitation standards, there is no way to require
grantees to install broadband infrastructure in multifamily housing.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule would provide
that for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily
rental housing funded by HUD that, as part of the new construction or
substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken, such activity must include
installation of broadband infrastructure. Installing broadband
infrastructure will be an additional cost when doing HUD-funded new
construction/substantial rehabilitation. However, HUD notes that none
of the HUD covered programs listed in this rule require a grantee to
undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. New
construction and substantial rehabilitation are eligible activities
that grantees may undertake under HUD-funded programs. Therefore,
entities will not incur any costs than they otherwise would incur by
using their HUD funds to voluntarily undertake new construction or
substantial rehabilitation under HUD funded-programs that authorize
such activities.
Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by
pairing the installation requirements with new construction or
rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband
infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is
proposing to define ``substantial rehabilitation'' as significant work
(50 percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the
following systems: Electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further
minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work
that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure
triggers the proposed requirements.
HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings
where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical
due to a variety of circumstances (e.g., no broadband access is
available near the community, the building itself may have some
difficulties in supporting the infrastructure). In these instances, HUD
is reserving the right to determine that installation of broadband
infrastructure is not feasible and excusing the grantee from the
installation requirement.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
Federalism Affected: No.
Energy Affected: No.
International Impacts: No.
Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
3055.
RIN: 2501-AD75
Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Community Planning: Integrating
Broadband Planning Into HUD's Consolidated Planning Process
HUD Office: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community
Planning and Development.
Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule.
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-
11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 91.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: For communities to survive in this digital era, planning
for broadband access must be a basic component of their community
planning process. HUD's Consolidated Plan is a planning mechanism
designed to help States and local governments
[[Page 77797]]
assess their affordable housing and community development needs and
make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated
planning process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue
to identify housing and community development priorities that align and
focus funding from HUD's formula block grant programs.
This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations
to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the
needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities
they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule
would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated
plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to
high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made
available to these residents. If low-income residents in the
communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and
jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available
to their communities as part of their investment of HUD funds. The
proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close
the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed
Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic
backgrounds.
Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the
digital divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-
income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the
populations impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of
implementing these Administration efforts. The digital divide in
broadband access, connectivity, and use disproportionately affects
certain Americans: Those who earn less than $25,000 annually;
individuals who did not finish high school; and African Americans and
Hispanics. Eighty-four percent of households with HUD assistance make
less than $20,000 per year, and 63 percent are African American or
Hispanic (46 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-
assisted household, 38 percent have children who are 18 years or
younger. The proposed regulatory amendments will build on the success
of ConnectHome by codifying the policy goals of increased Internet
access and digital literacy as permanent features of HUD's community
planning regulations.
Alternatives: The Consolidated Plan requirements are regulatory in
nature so rulemaking is necessary to revise them. While non-regulatory
guidance encouraging the consideration of broadband access in the
consolidated planning process is a possible alternative, such guidance
is non-binding. Accordingly, rulemaking is the only possible option to
accomplish the policy goals described above.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule will amend the
Consolidated Plan regulations to require that States and local
governments evaluate the access of public and other assisted housing
residents to broadband Internet service. The proposed regulatory
changes are concerned with the consolidated planning process and HUD
does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and
reporting requirements, as proposed in this rule, will be significant
since the regulatory changes merely build upon similar existing
requirements rather than mandating completely new procedures. While the
proposed rule would require States and local governments to consider,
as part of their Consolidated Planning process, the broadband access
needs of resident of public and other assisted housing, the rule does
not mandate that actions be taken to meet those needs. The significant
interest expressed by many communities in participating in ConnectHome
demonstrated to HUD that many jurisdictions that are already engaged in
planning to bring high-speed Internet access to their low-income
communities. These jurisdictions also demonstrated their awareness of
the harmful effects of the digital divide and a high interest in
narrowing that divide. Additionally, given the positive response to
ConnectHome, HUD anticipates that many State and local governments will
devote resources, whether public or private, without any mandate from
HUD, to bring high-speed Internet access to their communities. This
rule therefore, which only requires consideration of the needs in low-
income communities to access to broadband Internet service, has a
minimal cost impact on all grantees subject to the Consolidated
Planning process.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
Federalism Affected: No.
Energy Affected: No.
International Impacts: No.
Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
3055.
RIN: 2506-AC41
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)
Proposed Rule Stage
68. Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Broadband
Installation in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial
Rehabilitation (FR-5890)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 12 U.S.C. 4568; 1437a, 1437c,
1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 1437z-2, 1437z-7; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C.
5301-5320; 42 U.S.C. 8013; 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 12701-
12839; 42 U.S.C. 12901-12912; 42 U.S.C. 13611-13619; sec 327, Pub. L.
109-115, 119 Stat 2936; sec 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat 3051
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5; 24 CFR 92; 24 CFR 93; 24 CFR 570; 24 CFR
578; 24 CFR 880; 24 CFR 905; 24 CFR 983.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to
narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD by
providing, where feasible and with HUD funding, broadband access to
communities in need of such access. Broadband is the common term used
to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is
also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. In
this rule, HUD proposes to require installation of broadband
infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial
rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing that is funded by HUD.
Installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new
construction or substantial rehabilitation is generally easier and less
costly than when such installation is undertaken as a stand-alone
effort. The proposed rule, however, recognizes that installation of
broadband infrastructure may not be
[[Page 77798]]
feasible for all new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and
therefore the proposed rule allows limited exceptions to the
installation requirements. Installing unit-based high-speed Internet in
multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed and substantially
rehabilitated with HUD funding will not only expand affordable housing
for low-income families but will provide a platform for individuals and
families residing in such housing to participate in the digital
economy, and increase their access to economic opportunities.
Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the
digital divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-
income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the
populations impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of
implementing these Administration efforts. The digital divide in
broadband access, connectivity, and use disproportionately affects
certain Americans: Those who earn less than $25,000 annually;
individuals who did not finish high school; and African Americans and
Hispanics. Eighty-four percent of households with HUD assistance make
less than $20,000 per year, and 63 percent are African American or
Hispanic (46 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-
assisted household, 38 percent have children who are 18 years or
younger. The proposed rule will build on the success of ConnectHome by
ensuring that when construction or significant rehabilitation is done
using HUD funds, the infrastructure needed for broadband access is
included in the work.
Summary of Legal Basis: None.
Alternatives: Construction and rehabilitation standards are
regulatory in nature, so amending them to require the installation of
broadband infrastructure requires rulemaking. Without amending the
construction and rehabilitation standards, there is no way to require
grantees to install broadband infrastructure in multifamily housing.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would provide that
for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily
rental housing funded by HUD that, as part of the new construction or
substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken, such activity must include
installation of broadband infrastructure. Installing broadband
infrastructure will be an additional cost when doing HUD-funded new
construction/substantial rehabilitation. However, HUD notes that none
of the HUD covered programs listed in this rule require a grantee to
undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. New
construction and substantial rehabilitation are eligible activities
that grantees may take using HUD funds. Therefore, entities will not
incur any costs than they otherwise would incur by voluntarily
undertaking new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and the
costs of these activities are funded by HUD.
Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by
pairing the installation requirements with new construction or
rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband
infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is
proposing to define substantial rehabilitation as significant work (50
percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the
following systems: electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further
minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work
that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure
triggers the proposed requirements.
HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings
where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical
due to a variety of circumstances (e.g., no broadband access is
available near the community, the building itself may have some
difficulties in supporting the infrastructure). In these instances, HUD
is reserving the right to determine that installation of broadband
infrastructure is not feasible and excusing the grantee from the
installation requirement.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-5132.
RIN: 2501-AD75
HUD--OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
Proposed Rule Stage
69. Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Community Planning:
Integrating Broadband Planning Into HUD's Consolidated Planning Process
(FR-5891)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; 42 U.S.C.
5301-5315; 42 U.S.C. 11331-11388; 42 U.S.C.12701-12711; 42 U.S.C.12741-
12756; 42 U.S.C. 12901-12912
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 91.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: For communities to survive in this digital era, planning
for broadband access must be a basic component of their community
planning process. HUD's Consolidated Plan is a planning mechanism
designed to help States and local governments to assess their
affordable housing and community development needs and to make data-
driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated planning
process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to
identify housing and community development priorities that align and
focus funding from HUD's formula block grant programs.
This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations
to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the
needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities
they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule
would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated
plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to
high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made
available to these residents. If low-income residents in the
communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and
jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available
to their communities, as part of their investment of HUD funds. The
proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close
the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed
Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic
backgrounds.
Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the
digital
[[Page 77799]]
divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-income
Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the populations
impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of implementing
these Administration efforts. The digital divide in broadband access,
connectivity, and use disproportionately affects certain Americans:
Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; individuals who did not
finish high school; and African Americans and Hispanics. Eighty-four
percent of households with HUD assistance make less than $20,000 per
year, and 63 percent are African American or Hispanic (46 percent and
17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-assisted household, 38 percent
have children who are 18 years or younger. The proposed regulatory
amendments will build on the success of ConnectHome by codifying the
policy goals of increased Internet access and digital literacy as
permanent features of HUD's community planning regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: None.
Alternatives: The Consolidated Plan requirements are regulatory in
nature so rulemaking is necessary to revise them. While non-regulatory
guidance encouraging the consideration of broadband access in the
consolidated planning process is a possible alternative, such guidance
is non-binding. Accordingly, rulemaking is the only possible option to
accomplish the policy goals described above.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will amend the
Consolidated Plan regulations to require that States and local
governments evaluate the access of public and other assisted housing
residents to broadband Internet service. The proposed regulatory
changes are concerned with the consolidated planning process and HUD
does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and
reporting requirements, as proposed in this rule, will be significant
since the regulatory changes merely build upon similar existing
requirements rather than mandating completely new procedures. While the
proposed rule would require States and local governments to consider,
as part of their Consolidated Planning process, the broadband access
needs of resident of public and other assisted housing, the rule does
not mandate the actions that actions be taken to meet those needs. The
significant interest in participating in ConnectHome demonstrated to
HUD that many jurisdictions that are already engaged in planning to
bring high-speed Internet access to their low-income communities. These
jurisdictions also demonstrated their awareness of the harmful effects
of the digital divide and a high interest in narrowing that divide.
Additionally, given the positive response to ConnectHome, HUD
anticipates that many State and local governments will devote
resources, whether public or private, without any mandate from HUD, to
bring high-speed Internet access to their communities. This rule
therefore, which only requires consideration of the needs in low-income
communities to access to broadband Internet service, has a minimal cost
impact on all grantees subject to the Consolidated Planning process.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-5132.
RIN: 2506-AC41
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
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. DOI serves as trustee to Native Americans and
Alaska native trust assets and is responsible for relations with the
island territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department
manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, including 408
park units and 563 wildlife refuges, and more than one billion
submerged offshore acres. These areas include natural resources that
are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and minerals
such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer Continental
Shelf, Interior provides access for renewable and conventional energy
development and manages the protection and restoration of surface-mined
lands.
The Department protects and recovers endangered species; protects
natural, historic, and cultural resources; manages water projects that
are a lifeline and economic engine for many communities in the West;
manages forests and fights wildfires; manages Federal energy resources;
regulates surface coal mining operations; reclaims abandoned coal
mines; educates children in Indian schools; and provides recreational
opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in the Nation's
national parks, public lands, national wildlife refuges, and recreation
areas.
DOI will continue to review and update its regulations and policies
to ensure that they are effective and efficient, and that they promote
accountability and sustainability. DOI 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 (OCS);
Use the best available science to ensure that public
resources are protected, conserved, and used wisely;
Preserve America's natural treasures for future
generations;
Improve the nation-to-nation relationship with American
Indian tribes and promote tribal self-determination and self-
governance;
Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local
governments, other groups, and individuals to achieve common goals; and
Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the
highest ethical standards while maintaining performance goals.
Major Regulatory Areas
The Department's bureaus implement congressionally mandated
programs through their regulations. Some of these regulatory programs
include:
Overseeing the development of onshore and offshore energy,
including renewable, mineral, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
Regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations
on public and private lands;
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;
[[Page 77800]]
Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to
American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
Managing natural resource damage assessments.
Regulatory Policy
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.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources
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 public
lands and the OCS. Industry has responded by investing in the
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 responsible manner, harnesses with
minimum impact abundant renewable energy. 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 and the Outer Continental Shelf, and will
identify how its regulatory processes can be improved to facilitate the
responsible development of these resources.
In implementing these priorities through its regulations, the
Department will create jobs and contribute to a healthy economy while
protecting our signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and
cultural resources.
(3) Empowering People and Communities
The Department strongly encourages public participation in the
regulatory process and will continue to actively engage the public in
the implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout the Department,
individual bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people
have an active role in managing our Nation's public lands and
resources.
For example, every year FWS establishes migratory bird hunting
seasons in partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and
wildlife agencies. FWS also holds a series of public meetings to give
other interested parties, including hunters and other groups,
opportunities to participate in establishing the upcoming season's
regulations. Similarly, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils to advise
on management of public lands and resources. These citizen-based groups
allow individuals from all backgrounds and interests to have a voice in
management of public lands.
Retrospective Review of Regulations
President Obama's Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to make
the regulatory system work better for the American public. Regulations
should ``. . . protect public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOI's plan for retrospective
regulatory review identifies specific efforts to relieve regulatory
burdens, add jobs to the economy, and make regulations work better for
the American public while protecting our environment and resources.
The Department routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit
feedback and gather input on how modernize our regulatory programs,
through efforts such as incorporating performance based standards where
appropriate and removing outdated and unnecessary requirements. DOI
bureaus are continuing to work to make our regulations easier to comply
with and understand. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share
ideas on how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the
requirements of the laws they enforce and improving their stewardship
of the environment and resources. Results include:
Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way
that is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
Increased benefits per dollar spent by careful evaluation
of the economic effects of planned rules; and
Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain
language in our regulations and guidance documents.
The Department's Final Plan for Retrospective Review and biannual
status reports can be viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/regsreview.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following sections give an overview of some of the major
regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides services to
approximately 1.9 million Indians and Alaska Natives, and maintains a
government-to-government relationship with the 567 federally recognized
Indian tribes. The Bureau also administers and manages 55 million acres
of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in
trust by the United States for Indians and Indian tribes. BIA's mission
is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and
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 focus on improved
management of trust responsibilities with each regulatory review and
revision. The Bureau will also continue to promote economic development
in Indian communities by ensuring the regulations support, rather than
hinder, productive land management. In addition, BIA will focus on
updating Indian education regulations and on other regulatory changes
to increase transparency in support of the President's Open Government
Initiative.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
Finalize regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals
for rights-of-ways across Indian land.
Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian
education.
BIA is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of Indian
Education to follow 23 different State adequate yearly progress
standards; the review will determine whether a uniform standard would
better meet the needs of students at Bureau-funded schools. With regard
to undergraduate education, the Bureau of Indian Education plans to
finalize regulations that address grants to tribally controlled
community colleges and other Indian education regulations. These
reviews identify
[[Page 77801]]
provisions that need to be updated to comply with applicable statutes
and ensure that the proper regulatory framework is in place to support
students in Bureau-funded schools.
Revise regulations to reflect updated statutory provisions
and 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
ensuring that each revised regulation is written as clearly as possible
and accurately reflects the current organization of the Bureau. The
Bureau is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete
provisions. In the coming year, the Bureau also plans to finalize
revisions to regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169);
Secretarial elections (25 CFR 81); the Housing Improvement Program (25
CFR 256); Indian Reservation Roads (25 CFR 170); and Indian Child
Welfare Act proceedings (25 CFR 23).
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.
In doing so, BLM manages such varied uses as energy and mineral
development, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and
woodlands products. BLM's complex multiple-use mission affects the
lives of millions of Americans, including those who live near and visit
the public lands, as well as those who benefit from the commodities,
such as minerals, energy, or timber, produced from the lands' rich
resources. In undertaking its management responsibilities, BLM seeks to
conserve our public lands' natural and cultural resources and sustain
the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations.
In the coming year, BLM's highest regulatory priorities include:
Provide for site security by preventing theft and loss and
to enable accurate measurement and production accountability.
Ensure that crude oil produced from Federal and Indian oil
and gas leases is accurately measured and accounted for.
Ensure that gas produced from Federal and Indian oil and
gas leases is accurately measured and accounted.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is updating and improving the
current versions of Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Order) for Site
Security (Order 3), Oil Measurement (Order 4), and Gas Measurement
(Order 5). These Orders were last updated in 1989. The primary purpose
for these updates is to keep pace with changing industry practices,
emerging and new technologies, respond to recommendations from the
Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Department) Office of the Inspector General, and the Department's
Subcommittee on Royalty Management. The proposed changes address
findings and recommendations that in part formed the basis for the
GAO's inclusion of the Department's oil and gas program on the GAO's
High Risk List in 2011 (GAO-11-278) and for its continuing to keep the
program on the list in the 2013 and 2015 updates. The Orders will be
published as proposed rules in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
3173, 3174 and 3175 respectively.
Preventing waste of produced natural gas and ensuring fair
return to the taxpayer.
BLM's current requirements regarding venting and flaring of natural
gas from oil and gas operations are over three decades old. The agency
is currently preparing a proposed rule to address emissions reductions
and minimize waste through improved standards for venting, flaring, and
fugitive losses of methane from oil and gas production facilities on
Federal and Indian lands.
Ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return from energy
resources developed on the public lands, those resources are diligently
and responsibly developed, and that adequate financial measures exist
to address the risks.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended to the BLM
that steps be taken to revise its regulations with respect to onshore
royalty rates to provide flexibility to change those rates. On April
21, 2015, the BLM issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) seeking public comment on potential updates to BLM rules
governing oil and gas royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale
minimum bids, civil penalty caps and financial assurances. Over 82,000
comments were received by the end of the comment period on June 19,
2015. Most of the comments focused on fiscal lease terms--royalty
rates, rentals, and minimum bids. There were a few comments on bonding
and very few on civil penalties. The analysis of these comments is on-
going and is expected to be complete by the end of calendar year 2015.
Following completion of the analysis of these comments the BLM will
consider possible revisions to its regulations as contemplated by GAO
recommendations.
Creating a competitive process for offering lands for
solar and wind energy development.
BLM will finalize a rule that would establish an efficient
competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy
development. The regulations will establish competitive bidding
procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy
development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders,
and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The
rule will enhance BLM's ability to capture fair market value for the
use of public lands, ensure fair access to leasing opportunities for
renewable energy development, and foster the growth and development of
the renewable energy sector of the economy.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy
independence, environmental protection, and economic development
through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional
and renewable energy resources. It is dedicated to offering
opportunities to develop the conventional and renewable energy and the
underlying mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an
efficient and effective manner, balancing the need for economic growth
with the protection of the environment. BOEM oversees the expansion of
domestic energy production, enhancing the potential for domestic energy
independence and the generation of revenue to support the economic
development of the country. BOEM thoughtfully considers and balances
the potential environmental impacts associated with exploring and
extracting OCS resources with the critical need for domestic energy
production. BOEM's near-term regulatory agenda will focus on a number
of issues, including:
Enhancing the regulatory efficiency of the offshore
renewables program.
One rulemaking in particular has been proposed to address
recommendations submitted to BOEM by the Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies of Science, and other stakeholders in the
renewable energy development process. Specifically, this rulemaking
will clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents as part of the
process of designing, fabricating, and installing offshore wind energy
facilities for the OCS. Additionally, BOEM is working to
[[Page 77802]]
transfer regulatory oversight responsibilities relating to offshore
renewable energy inspections and certain enforcement activities to the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). This transfer in
being undertaken in an effort to implement Department of the Interior
Secretarial Order 3299, and will help ensure that these oversight
activities will be conducted by the DOI bureau with the appropriate
experience and expertise in operational matters.
Updating BOEM's Air Quality Program.
BOEM's original air quality rules date largely from 1980 and have
not been updated substantially since that time. From 1990 to 2011, DOI
exercised jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS sources operating
in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2011, Congress expanded DOI's
authority by transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air
quality off the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, including
the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea. BOEM will propose regulations to
reflect changes that have occurred over the past thirty-four years and
the new regulatory jurisdiction. In its development of proposed
regulations, BOEM coordinated with other bureaus and agencies,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Promoting Effective Financial Assurance and Risk
Management.
BOEM has the responsibility to ensure that lessees and operators on
the OCS do not engage in activities that could generate an undue risk
of financial loss to the government. BOEM formally established a
program office to review these issues, and is working with industry and
others to determine how to improve the regulatory regime to better
align with the realities of aging offshore infrastructure, hazard
risks, and increasing costs of decommissioning. In order to minimize
the potential adverse impact of any proposed regulations, and in an
effort to take all issues and views into proper account, BOEM published
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and has engaged with industry
on the subject. BOEM has since issued a Notice to Lessees, will review
comments, finalize guidance, and determine whether to update its
regulation in this area.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
BSEE's mission is to regulate safety, emergency preparedness,
environmental responsibility and appropriate development and
conservation of offshore oil and natural gas resources. BSEE's
priorities in fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) Regulate, enforce,
and respond to OCS development using the full range of authorities,
policies, and tools to compel safety and environmental responsibility
and appropriate development of offshore oil and natural gas resources;
and (2) Build and sustain the organizational, technical, and
intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions--capacity
that keeps pace with OCS industry technology improvements, innovates in
regulation and enforcement, and reduces risk through systemic
assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
BSEE has identified the following four areas of regulatory
priorities:
Improving Crane and Helicopter Safety on Offshore
Facilities.
BSEE will finalize a rule regarding crane safety on fixed offshore
platforms and will propose a rule for helicopter/helideck safety.
Improving Oil Spill Response Plans and Procedures.
BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response plans
by incorporating requirements for improved procedures. The procedures
that will be required are based on lessons learned from the Deepwater
Horizon spill, as well as nearly two decades of agency oversight and
applicable BSEE research.
Tailoring Drilling Requirements to the Unique Conditions
of the Arctic.
BSEE and BOEM will finalize a joint rule that promotes safe,
responsible, and effective exploratory drilling activities on the
Arctic OCS by taking into account the unique aspects and risks of
operating in the Arctic, in order to ensure protection of the Arctic's
communities and marine environment.
Managing and Mitigating Well Control and Blowout Preventer
Risks.
BSEE will finalize a rule concerning requirements on blowout
preventers and critical reforms in the areas of well design, well
control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, and subsea
containment. This rule will address multiple recommendations resulting
from various investigations from the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Additionally, BSEE will finalize revisions of its regulations on
production safety systems and life cycle analysis. This final rule will
expand the use of life cycle management of critical equipment and will
address issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety device
testing, and requirements for operating production systems on the OCS.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
ONRR will continue to collect, account for, and disburse revenues
from Federal offshore energy and mineral leases and from onshore
mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands. The program operates
nationwide and is primarily responsible for timely and accurate
collection, distribution, and accounting for revenues associated with
mineral and energy production. ONRR's regulatory plan is as follows:
Implement regulations to ensure compliance.
ONRR is promulgating final rules to ensure compliance with the
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996,
which will also clarify regulatory processes and direction for lessors
on Federal leases.
Simplify valuation regulations.
ONRR plans to finalize regulations at title 30 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1206 for establishing the value for
royalty purposes of (1) oil and natural gas produced from Federal
leases; and (2) coal produced from Federal and Indian leases.
Additionally, the rule consolidates sections of the regulations common
to all minerals, such as definitions and instructions regarding how a
payor should request a valuation determination. Clarify and simplify
issuing notices of non-compliance and civil penalties.
This rule will amend ONRR civil penalty regulations to: (1) Codify
application of those regulations to solid minerals and geothermal
leases as the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 authorizes; (2) adjust
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act civil penalty amounts for
inflation as the Federal Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act
requires; (3) clarify and simplify the existing regulations for issuing
notices of noncompliance and civil penalties under 30 CFR part 1241;
and (4) provide notice that ONRR will post its matrices for civil
penalty assessments on the ONRR Web site.
Define methodologies for distribution and disbursement of
qualified revenues from certain leases under the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA).
ONRR is amending the regulations on the distribution and
disbursement of qualified revenues from certain leases on the Gulf of
Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf, per the statutory direction contained
in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. This regulation sets
forth the formulas and methodologies for calculating and allocating
revenues during the second phase of revenue sharing to: The States
[[Page 77803]]
of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; their eligible Coastal
Political Subdivisions; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the
United States Treasury. Additionally, in this final rule, the
Department of the Interior moves the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
of 2006's Phase I regulations from the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management's 30 CFR chapter V to ONRR's 30 CFR chapter XII, and
provides additional clarification and minor definition changes to the
current revenue-sharing regulations.
Simplify the valuation of coal advance royalty.
The new regulations will implement the provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) governing the payment of advance royalty on
coal resources produced from Federal leases. The EPAct provisions amend
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA). ONRR is also adding information
collection requirements that are applicable to all solid minerals
leases and also are necessary to implement the EPAct Federal coal
advance royalty provisions.
Consolidate billing and collection systems at the
Department level.
This Direct Final Rule (DFR) amends those sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to how to submit rental and bonus
payments for onshore lease sales. The goals are to increase flexibility
in how the Department collects these payments and to provide
consistency between onshore and offshore lease sale payments and
collections. The DFR changes references to paying rents and bonuses
from the BLM State Office to paying rents and bonuses as stipulated in
the terms of a BLM Lease Sale Notice. BLM will notify potential bidders
of their payment options in the Lease Sale Notice during the pre-sale
notification process, which occurs 90 days prior to the lease sale
date. This additional flexibility will allow for a transition period
for successful implementation and coordination between BLM and ONRR.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM has two principal functions--the regulation
of surface coal mining and reclamation operations and the reclamation
and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA,
Congress directed OSM to ``strike a balance between protection of the
environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for
coal as an essential source of energy.'' In response to its statutory
mandate, OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory
program that is safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound. A
stable regulatory program ensures that the coal mining industry has
clear guidelines for operation and reclamation, and that citizens know
how the program is being implemented.
OSM's Federal regulatory program sets minimum requirements for
obtaining a permit for surface and underground coal mining operations,
sets performance standards for those operations, requires reclamation
of lands and waters disturbed by mining, and requires enforcement to
ensure that the standards are met. OSM is the primary regulatory
authority for SMCRA enforcement until a State or Indian tribe develops
its own regulatory program, which is no less effective than the Federal
program. When a State or Indian tribe achieves ``primacy,'' it assumes
direct responsibility for permitting, inspection, and enforcement
activities under its federally approved regulatory program. The
regulatory standards in Federal program states and in primacy states
are essentially the same with only minor, non-substantive differences.
Today, 24 States have primacy, including 23 of the 24 coal producing
States. OSM's regulatory priorities for the coming year will focus on:
Stream Protection.
Protect streams and related environmental resources from the
adverse effects of surface coal mining operations. OSM plans to
finalize regulations to improve the balance between environmental
protection and the Nation's need for coal by better protecting streams
from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations.
Coal Combustion Residues.
Establish Federal standards for the beneficial use of coal
combustion residues on active and abandoned coal mines.
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 provides 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 endangered and threatened 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 more than 150-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.
During the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We will issue multiple rules to add species to, remove species
from, and reclassify species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants and to designate critical habitat for certain
listed species. We will issue a rule to improve the process for listing
species by revising the process for submitting petitions to list,
delist, or reclassify species. We will further the protection of native
species and their ecosystems through a policy that will provide
incentives for voluntary conservation actions taken for species prior
to their listing under the ESA. In accordance with Executive Order
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''), we will issue
rules to improve the process of critical habitat designation, including
clarifying definitions of ``critical habitat'' and ``destruction or
adverse modification'' of critical habitat, and a policy to explain how
we consider various factors in determining exclusions to critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.
Regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In carrying out our responsibility to manage migratory bird
populations, we issue annual migratory bird hunting regulations, which
establish the frameworks (outside limits) for States to establish
season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting.
In compliance with E.O. 13563, beginning with the 2016-17 hunting
season, we are using a new schedule for promulgating these regulations
that is more efficient and will provide potential season dates for the
States to consider much earlier than was possible under the old
process. For example, we anticipate proposing season frameworks in
December 2015, instead of during the summer of 2016, which will make
planning easier for the States and all
[[Page 77804]]
parties interested in migratory bird hunting.
We will also issue a programmatic environmental impact statement to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to authorize
incidental take of migratory birds under the MBTA. We are considering
rulemaking to address various approaches to regulating incidental take
of migratory birds. The rulemaking would establish appropriate
standards for any such regulatory approach to ensure that incidental
take of migratory birds is appropriately mitigated, which may include
requiring measures to avoid or minimize take or securing compensation.
Regulations to administer the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS).
In carrying out our statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, we issue an annual
rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific refuges.
To ensure protection of NWRS resources, we will issue a proposed rule
to ensure that businesses conducting oil or gas operations on NWRS
lands do so in a manner that prevents or minimizes damage to the lands,
visitor values, and management objectives.
Regulations to carry out the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration (WSFR) Act.
To strengthen our partnership with State conservation
organizations, we are working on several rules to update and clarify
our WSFR regulations. States rely on FWS to distribute finances from
trust fund and excise tax revenues, and the FWS relies on the States to
implement eligible conservation projects. Planned regulatory revisions
will help to reflect several new decisions that State and Federal
partners have agreed upon, and to clarify language in clear and precise
terms. We will expand on existing regulations that prescribe processes
that applicants and grantees must follow when applying for and managing
grants from FWS. We will also revise our regulations under the Clean
Vessel Act program to improve management and execution of that program.
Regulations to carry out the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the
Lacey Act.
In accordance with section 3(a) of Executive Order 13609
(``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation''), we will update
our CITES regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th
Conference of the Parties to CITES. The revisions will help us more
effectively promote species conservation and help U.S. importers and
exporters of wildlife products understand how to conduct lawful
international trade. We will also rewrite a substantial portion of our
regulations for the importation, exportation, and transportation of
wildlife by proposing changes to the port structure and inspection fees
and making the regulations easier to understand.
To help protect African elephants, we will finalize regulations
regarding ivory from African elephants to prohibit interstate commerce
and export, except for antique specimens and certain other items.
Import of sport-hunted trophies would still be allowed, but the number
of trophies that could be imported by a hunter in a given year would be
limited.
Finally, to protect native species and prevent the spread of
injurious species, we will propose regulations to improve our process
for making injurious wildlife determinations for foreign species under
the Lacey Act to prevent the importation and interstate transportation
and commerce of injurious wildlife.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural
and cultural resources and values within more than 400 units of the
National Park System encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and
waters for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future
generations. The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the
benefits of natural and resource conservation and outdoor recreation
throughout the United States and the world.
To achieve this mission NPS adheres to the following guiding
principles:
Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to
park visitors and partners.
Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and
businesses to work toward common goals.
Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens
to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park
Service.
Heritage Education: Educating park visitors and the
general public about their history and common heritage.
Outstanding Employees: Empowering a diverse workforce
committed to excellence, integrity, and quality work.
Employee Development: Providing developmental
opportunities and training so employees have the ``tools to do the
job'' safely and efficiently.
Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic,
environmental, and ethical considerations into the decision-making
process.
Effective Management: Instilling a performance management
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires
accountability at all levels.
Research and Technology: Incorporating research findings
and new technologies to improve work practices, products, and services.
The NPS regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use.
Rules for Fire Island National Seashore, Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Big Cypress
National Preserve would allow for management of off-road vehicle (ORV)
use, to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources, and
provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts
among user groups. Further, the rules would designate ORV routes and
establish operational requirements and restrictions.
Managing Bicycling.
A new rule would authorize and allow for management of bicycling at
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act.
(1) A new rule would establish a process for disposition of
Unclaimed Human Remains and Funerary Objects discovered after November
16, 1990, on Federal or Indian Lands.
(2) A rule revising the existing regulations would describe the
NAGPRA process in plain language, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms,
and include Native Hawaiians in the process. The rule would eliminate
unnecessary requirements for museums and would not add processes or
collect additional information.
Regulating non-Federal oil and gas activity on NPS land.
NPS will revise its existing regulations to account for new
technology and industry practices, eliminate regulatory exemptions,
update new legal requirements, remove caps on bond amounts, and allow
the NPS to recover compliance costs associated with administering the
regulations.
Managing service animals.
The rule will define and differentiate service animals from pets,
and will describe the circumstances under which service animals would
be allowed in a park area. The rule will ensure NPS compliance with
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (28 U.S.C. 794) and
better align NPS regulations with the Americans with Disabilities
[[Page 77805]]
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1211 et seq.) and the Department of Justice
Service Animal regulations of 2011 (28 CFR 36.104).
Preserving and managing paleontological resources.
This rule would implement provisions of the Paleontological
Resources Protection Act. The rule would preserve, manage, and protect
paleontological resources on Federal lands and ensure that these
resources are available for current and future generations to enjoy as
part of America's national heritage. The rule would address management,
collection, and curation of paleontological resources from Federal
lands using scientific principles and expertise. Provisions of the rule
will ensure that resources are collected in accordance with permits and
curated in an approved repository. The rule would also protect
confidential locality data, and authorize penalties for illegally
collecting, damaging, altering, defacing, or selling paleontological
resources.
Collecting plants for traditional cultural practices.
The rule will authorize Park Superintendents to enter into
agreements with federally recognized tribes to permit tribal members to
collect limited quantities of plant resources in parks to be used for
traditional cultural practices and activities.
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 2016 is to publish a
proposed minor amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to bring it into compliance
with the requirements of 43 CFR part 5, Commercial Filming and Similar
Projects and Still Photography on Certain Areas under Department
Jurisdiction. Publishing this rule will implement the provisions of
Public Law 106-206, which directs the establishment of permits and
reasonable fees for commercial filming and certain still photography
activities on public lands.
BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2015
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and
defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to
ensure public safety against foreign and domestic threats, to provide
Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure the
fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. In
carrying out its mission, the Department is guided by four core values:
(1) Equal justice under the law; (2) honesty and integrity; (3)
commitment to excellence; and (4) respect for the worth and dignity of
each human being. The Department of Justice is primarily a law
enforcement agency, not a regulatory agency; it carries out its
principal investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement
activities through means other than the regulatory process.
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in
the areas of civil rights, criminal law enforcement and immigration.
These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, 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 Division
The Department is including four disability nondiscrimination
rulemaking initiatives in its Regulatory Plan: (1) Implementation of
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the ADA regulations (titles II and
III); (2) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the
Department's section 504 regulations; (3) Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations: Movie Captioning and
Audio Description; and (4) Accessibility of Web Information and
Services of State and Local Governments.
The Department will also be revising its regulations for
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted
Programs, as well as revising regulations implementing section 274B of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Department's other disability nondiscrimination rulemaking
initiatives, while important priorities for the Department's rulemaking
agenda, will be included in the Department's long-term actions for
fiscal years 2017 and 2018. As will be discussed more fully below,
these initiatives include: (1) Accessibility of Medical Equipment and
Furniture; (2) Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility
Features in Places of Lodging; (3) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services; (4)
Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations;
and (5) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture.
Regulatory Plan Initiatives
ADA Amendments Act. In September 2008, Congress passed the ADA
Amendments Act, which revises the definition of ``disability'' to more
broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life
activity. On January 30, 2014, the Department published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing amendments to both its title II
and title III ADA regulations in order to incorporate the statutory
changes set forth in the ADA Amendments Act. The comment period closed
on March 31, 2014. The Department expects to publish a final rule
incorporating these changes into the ADA implementing regulations in
fiscal year 2016. The Department also plans to propose amendments to
its section 504 regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
in fiscal year 2016.
Captioning and Audio Description in Movie Theaters. 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. 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 36.303(b)(1)-(2).
The Department stated in the preamble to its 1991 rule that ``[m]ovie
[[Page 77806]]
theaters are not required . . . to present open-captioned films,'' 28
CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but it did not address closed captioning
and audio description in movie theaters. In the movie theater context,
``closed captioning'' refers to captions that only the patron
requesting the closed captions can see because the captions are
delivered to the patron at or near the patron's seat. Audio description
is a technology that enables individuals who are blind or have low
vision to enjoy movies by providing a spoken narration of key visual
elements of a visually delivered medium, such as actions, settings,
facial expressions, costumes, and scene changes.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area
of closed captioning and audio description for first-run movies. In
June 2008, the Department issued an 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 issued an ANPRM on July 26,
2010, 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 would either replace or augment digital
cinema or make any regulatory requirements for captioning and audio
description more difficult or expensive to implement. The Department
received approximately 1,171 public comments in response to its movie
captioning and video description ANPRM. On August 1, 2014, the
Department published its NPRM proposing to revise the ADA title III
regulation to require movie theaters to have the capability to exhibit
movies with closed movie captioning and audio description (which was
described in the ANPRM as video description) for all showings of movies
that are available with closed movie captioning or audio description,
to require theaters to provide notice to the public about the
availability of these services, and to ensure that theaters have staff
available who can provide information to patrons about the use of these
services. In response to a request for an extension of the public
comment period, the Department has issued a notice extending the
comment period for 60 days until December 1, 2014. The Department
received approximately 435 public comments in response to the movie
captioning and audio description NPRM and expects to publish a final
rule during fiscal year 2016.
Web site Accessibility: State and local Governments. The Internet
as it is known today did not exist when Congress enacted the ADA, yet
today the Internet 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 Web sites.
Being unable to access Web sites puts individuals at a great
disadvantage in today's society, which is driven by a dynamic
electronic marketplace and unprecedented access to information. For
individuals with disabilities who experience barriers to their ability
to travel or to leave their homes, the Internet may be their only way
to access certain government programs and services. In this regard, the
Internet is 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
Web sites. Information available on the Internet has become a gateway
to education, and participation in many other public programs and
activities. Through Government Web sites, 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 often 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 that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the
Department is planning to amend its regulation implementing title II of
the ADA to require public entities that provide services, programs or
activities to the public through Internet Web sites to make their sites
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
The Department, in its 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility,
indicated that it was considering amending its regulations implementing
titles II and III of the ADA to require Web site accessibility and it
sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt
for Web site accessibility, whether the Department should adopt
coverage limitations for certain entities, and what resources and
services are available to make existing Web sites accessible to
individuals with disabilities. The Department also solicited comments
on the costs of making Web sites accessible and on the existence of any
other effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to making Web
sites accessible. The Department received approximately 440 public
comments and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The
Department will be publishing separate NPRMs addressing Web site
accessibility pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA. The Department
expects to publish the title II NPRM early in fiscal year 2016.
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs. In addition, the Department is planning to revise
the coordination regulations implementing title VI of the Civil Rights
Act, which have not been updated in over 30 years. Among other things,
the updates will revise outdated provisions, streamline procedural
steps, streamline and clarify provisions regarding information and data
collection, promote opportunities to encourage public engagement, and
incorporate current law regarding meaningful access for individuals who
are limited English proficient. The Department expects to publish its
NPRM during fiscal year 2016.
Implementation of Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. The Department also proposes to revise regulations implementing
section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to reflect the
new name of the office within the Department charged with enforcing
this statute. The proposed revisions are appropriate to conform the
regulations to the statutory text as amended, simplify and add
definitions of statutory terms, update and clarify the procedures for
filing and processing charges of discrimination, ensure effective
investigations of unfair immigration-related employment practices, and
update outdated references. The Department expects to publish an NPRM
proposing these changes during fiscal year 2016.
Long-Term Actions
The remaining disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives
from the 2010 ANPRMs are
[[Page 77807]]
included in the Department's long-term priorities projected for fiscal
years 2017 and 2018:
Next Generation 9-1-1. This ANPRM sought information on possible
revisions to the Department's regulation to ensure direct access to
Next Generation 9-1-1 (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 NG 9-1-1 services 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 people with communication disabilities be able to use
the new systems. Therefore, the Department published this ANPRM to
begin to develop appropriate regulatory guidance for PSAPs that are
making this transition. The Department is in the process of completing
its review of the approximately 146 public comments it received in
response to its NG 9-1-1 ANPRM and expects to publish an NPRM
addressing accessibility of NG 9-1-1 during fiscal year 2017.
Web site Accessibility: Public Accommodations. As noted above, the
ADA's expansive nondiscrimination mandate reaches the goods and
services provided by public accommodations using Internet Web sites.
The inability to access Web sites 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. And, as also stated
above, for individuals with 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 Department's 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility, as
previously pointed out, sought public comment regarding what standards,
if any, it should adopt for Web site accessibility, whether the
Department should adopt coverage limitations for certain entities,
including small businesses, and what resources and services are
available to make existing Web sites accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The Department also solicited comments on the costs of
making Web sites accessible and on the existence of any other effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives to making Web sites accessible.
The Department is reviewing the public comments received in response to
the ANPRM and, as noted above, plans to publish the title II NPRM on
Web site accessibility early in fiscal year 2016. The Department
believes that the title II Web site accessibility rule will facilitate
the creation of an important infrastructure for Web accessibility that
will be very important in the Department's preparation of the title III
Web site accessibility NPRM. Consequently, the Department has decided
to extend the time period for development of the proposed title III Web
site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking
priorities. The Department expects to publish the title III Web site
accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.
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. The 2010 ADA
Standards include accessibility requirements for some types of fixed
equipment (e.g., ATMs, washing machines, dryers, tables, benches and
vending machines) and the Department plans to look to these standards
for guidance, where applicable, when it proposes accessibility
standards for equipment and furniture that is not fixed. The ANPRM
sought information about other categories of equipment, including beds
in accessible guest rooms, and medical equipment and furniture. The
Department received approximately 420 comments in response to its ANPRM
and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The Department plans
to publish in fiscal year 2017 a separate NPRM pursuant to title III of
the ADA on beds in accessible guest rooms, and in fiscal year 2018 an
NPRM pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA that focuses solely on
accessible medical equipment and furniture. The remaining items of
equipment and furniture addressed in the 2010 ANPRM will be the subject
of an NPRM that the Department anticipates publishing in fiscal year
2018.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
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, among other objectives, curb illegal
traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and to assist
State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing
crime and violence. The Department is planning to finalize a proposed
rule to amend ATF's regulations regarding the making or transferring of
a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, this rule would
(1) add a definition for the term ``responsible person''; (2) require
each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to
complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints;
and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief
law enforcement officer.
ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2016, to seek
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and
explosives. ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current
interim rules 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). ATF also has begun a rulemaking
process that will lead to promulgation of a revised set of regulations
(27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and practice for proposed
denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed
revocation of such licenses and permits.
[[Page 77808]]
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law
enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the
implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA
implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, and collectively
referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to
enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil
justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the
growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and
listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the
United States. DEA promulgates the CSA implementing regulations in
title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321.
The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent,
detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed
chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate
medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United
States.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA continuously evaluates new
and emerging substances to determine whether such substances should be
controlled under the CSA. During fiscal year 2016, in addition to
initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent imminent hazard to
the public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to control or
reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and
initiatives, the DEA will initiate the notice of proposed rulemaking
titled, ``Transporting Controlled Substances Away from Principal Places
of Business or Principal Places of Professional Practice on an As
Needed and Random Basis.'' In this rule, the DEA proposes to amend its
regulations governing the registration, security, reporting,
recordkeeping, and ordering requirements in circumstances where
practitioners transport controlled substances for dispensing to
patients on an as needed and random basis. Lastly, the DEA will
finalize its Interim Final Rule for Electronic Prescriptions for
Controlled Substances. By this final rule, the DEA would finalize its
regulations to clarify: (1) The criteria by which DEA-registered
practitioners may electronically issue controlled substance
prescriptions; and (2) the criteria by which DEA-registered pharmacies
may receive and archive these electronic prescriptions.
Bureau of Prisons
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.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and border
security and for providing immigration-related services and benefits,
such as naturalization, immigrant petitions, and work authorization,
was transferred from the Justice Department's former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) in EOIR remain part of the Department of Justice. The
immigration judges adjudicate approximately 300,000 cases each year to
determine whether aliens should be ordered removed from the United
States or should be granted some form of relief from removal. The Board
has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges,
as well as other matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a
continued role in the conducting of immigration proceedings, including
removal proceedings and custody determinations regarding the detention
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 immigration proceedings
in order to further EOIR's primary mission to adjudicate immigration
cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and
administering the Nation's immigration laws. These pending regulations
include but are not limited to: A proposed regulation to establish
procedures for the filing and adjudication of motions to reopen
removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings based upon a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel; a final regulation to improve the
recognition and accreditation process for organizations and
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR; and
a proposed regulation to implement procedures that address the
specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in removal
proceedings pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. In addition, EOIR recently
published a final regulation to allow for separate representation in
custody and bond proceedings and a final regulation to enhance the
eligibility requirements for providers to appear on the List of Pro
Bono Legal Service Providers. Finally, in response to Executive Order
13653, the Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations
to eliminate regulations that unnecessarily duplicate DHS's regulations
and update outdated references to the pre-2002 immigration system.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final Justice Department plan can
be found at: http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-rr-final-plan.pdf.
[[Page 77809]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1125-AA62.................... List of Pro Bono The Department has
Legal Service published a Final
Providers for rule amending the
Aliens in EOIR regulations to
Immigration enhance the
Proceedings. eligibility
requirements for
organizations,
private attorneys,
and referral services
to be included on the
List of Pro Bono
Legal Service
Providers.
1125-AA71.................... Retrospective Advance notice of
Regulatory future rulemaking
Review Under concerning appeals of
E.O. 13563 of 8 DHS decisions (8 CFR
CFR Parts 1003, part 1103),
1103, 1211, documentary
1212, 1215, requirements for
1216, 1235. aliens (8 CFR parts
1211 and 1212),
control of aliens
departing from the
United States (8 CFR
part 1215),
procedures governing
conditional permanent
resident status (8
CFR part 1216), and
inspection of
individuals applying
for admission to the
United States (8 CFR
part 1235). A number
of attorneys, firms,
and organizations in
immigration practice
are small entities.
EOIR believes this
rule will improve the
efficiency and
fairness of
adjudications before
EOIR by, for example,
eliminating
duplication, ensuring
consistency with the
Department of
Homeland Security's
regulations in
chapter I of title 8
of the CFR, and
delineating more
clearly the authority
and jurisdiction of
each agency. The
ANPRM was published
on 9/28/2012. The
comment period closed
on 11/27/2012. EOIR
is currently in the
process of reviewing
the comments received
and drafting two
follow-up NPRMs.
1125-AA72.................... Recognition of This rule amends the
Organizations regulations governing
and the requirements and
Accreditations procedures for
of Non-Attorney authorizing
Representatives. representatives of
non[hyphen]profit
religious,
charitable, social
service, or similar
organizations to
represent persons in
proceedings before
the Executive Office
for Immigration
Review (EOIR) and the
Department of
Homeland Security
(DHS).
1125-AA78.................... Separate The Department has
Representation published a Final
for Custody and rule amending the
Bond Proceedings. Executive Office for
Immigration Review
(EOIR) regulations
relating to the
representation of
aliens in custody and
bond proceedings by
allowing a
representative to
enter an appearance
in custody and bond
proceedings before
EOIR without
committing to appear
on behalf of the
alien for all
proceedings before
the Immigration
Court.
1117-AB37.................... Transporting to DEA proposes to amend
Dispense its regulations to
Controlled clearly delineate how
Substances on an to transport,
As-Needed and dispense, and store
Random Basis. controlled substances
away from registered
locations when such
activities are for
the purpose of
dispensing controlled
substances on an as-
needed and random
basis. These proposed
amendments include
changes necessary to
implement the
Veterinary Medicine
Mobility Act of 2014
and to clarify
controlled substance
handling requirements
for emergency
response operations.
1117-AB41.................... Implementation of DEA plans to update
the its regulations for
International the import and export
Trade Data of tableting and
System. encapsulating
machines, controlled
substances, and
listed chemicals, and
its regulations
relating to reports
required for domestic
transactions in
listed chemicals,
gammy-hydroxybutyric
acid, and tableting
and encapsulating
machines. In
accordance with
Executive Order
13563, the DEA has
plans to review its
import and export
regulations and
reporting
requirements for
domestic transactions
in listed chemicals
(and gammy-
hydroxybutyric acid)
and tableting and
encapsulating
machines, and
evaluate them for
clarity, consistency,
continued accuracy,
and effectiveness.
The proposed
amendments would
clarify certain
policies and reflect
current procedures
and technological
advancements. The
amendments would also
allow for the
implementation, as
applicable to
tableting and
encapsulating
machines, controlled
substances, and
listed chemicals, of
the President's
Executive Order 13659
on streamlining the
export/import process
and requiring the
government-wide
utilization of the
International Trade
Data System.
1121-AA85; 1121-AA86......... Public Safety These two related
Officers' rules are a priority
Benefits (PSOB) because certain key
Program. provisions of the
PSOB rule have been
superseded by
statutory change, a
need exists to
improve the overall
efficiency of the
program, and the last
significant update to
the rules was in
2008. The first rule
would be relatively
short and would
update the existing
regulation to address
issues related to
injuries and deaths
of public safety
officers asserted to
have been caused by 9/
11 services, and
offset issues with
the 9/11 Victim
Compensation Fund.
The second rule would
be a more
comprehensive update
of the PSOB
regulation. These
revisions are
necessary as a result
of significant
changes to the
Program following the
enactment of the Dale
Long Public Safety
Officers' Benefits
Improvements Act of
2012 (signed into law
in January 2013), as
well as
recommendations from
an OIG Audit
finalized in July
2015, and other
internal reviews that
identified the need
to streamline the
claims review process
to reduce delays and
increase
transparency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13609--Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The Department is not currently engaged in international regulatory
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to
significant regulations.
Executive Order 13659
Executive Order 13659, ``Streamlining the Export/Import Process for
America's Businesses,'' provided new directives for agencies to improve
the
[[Page 77810]]
technologies, policies, and other controls governing the movement of
goods across our national borders. This includes additional steps to
implement the International Trade Data System as an electronic
information exchange capability, or ``single window,'' through which
businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for
the importation or exportation of cargo.
At the Department of Justice, stakeholders must obtain pre-import
and pre-export authorizations from the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) (relating to controlled substances and listed chemicals), or from
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (relating
to firearms, ammunition, and explosives). The ITDS ``single window''
will work in conjunction with these pre-import and pre-export
authorizations. Because the ITDS excludes applications for permits,
licenses, or certifications, the ITDS single window will not be used by
DEA registrants, regulated persons, or brokers or traders applying for
permits or filing import/export declarations, notifications or reports.
The DEA import/export application and filing processes will continue to
remain separate from (and in advance of) the ITDS single window.
Entities will continue to use the DEA application and filing processes;
however, the processes will be electronic rather than paper. After
DEA's approval or notification of receipt as appropriate, the DEA will
transmit the necessary information electronically to the ITDS and the
registrant or regulated person.
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13659, DEA and ATF have consulted
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and are continuing to
study what modifications and technical changes to their existing
regulations and operational systems are needed to achieve the goals of
E.O. 13659.
DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)
Proposed Rule Stage
70. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 29 U.S.C. 794 (sec 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended); E.O. 12250 (45 FR 72955; 11/
04/1980)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 39; 28 CFR 41; 28 CFR 42, subpart G.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the Department's
regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, 28 CFR part 39 and part 42, subpart G, and its regulation
implementing Executive Order 12250, 28 CFR part 41, to reflect
statutory amendments to the definition of disability applicable to
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which were enacted in the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25,
2008). The ADA Amendments Act took effect on January 1, 2009. The ADA
Amendments Act revised 29 U.S.C. 705, to make the definition of
disability used in the nondiscrimination provisions in title V of the
Rehabilitation Act consistent with the amended ADA requirements. These
amendments (1) add illustrative lists of ``major life activities,''
including ``major bodily functions,'' that provide more examples of
covered activities and covered conditions than are now contained in
agency regulations (sec 3[2]); (2) clarify that a person who is
``regarded as'' having a disability does not have to be regarded as
being substantially limited in a major life activity (sec 3[3]); and
(3) add rules of construction regarding the definition of disability
that provide guidance in applying the term ``substantially limits'' and
prohibit consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether a
person has a disability (sec 3[4]). The Department anticipates that
these changes will be published for comment in a proposed rule within
the next 12 months. During the drafting of these revisions, the
Department will also review the currently published rules to ensure
that any other legal requirements under the Rehabilitation Act have
been properly addressed in these regulations.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's
prior section 504 regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008, which became effective on January 1, 2009.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: Because this NPRM implements statutory changes to the
section 504 definition of disability, there are no appropriate
alternatives to issuing this NPRM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
assessment in this early stage of the rulemaking process is that this
rule will not be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule
will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or
tribal Governments or communities. The Department's section 504 rule
will incorporate the same changes made by the ADA Amendments Act to the
definition of disability as are included in the proposed changes to the
ADA title II and title III rules (1190-AA59), which will be published
in the Federal Register in the near future. Therefore, we do not
believe that the revisions to the Department's existing section 504
federally assisted regulations will have any additional economic
impact, because public and private entities that receive federal
financial assistance from the Department are also likely to be subject
to titles II or III of the ADA. The Department expects to consider
further the economic impact of the proposed rule on the Department's
existing section 504 federally conducted regulations, but anticipates
that the rule will not be economically significant within the meaning
of Executive Order 12866. This is because the revisions to these
regulations will only apply to the Department's programs and activities
and how those programs and activities are operated so as to ensure
compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of section 504. In
the NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response
to its initial assessment of the impact of the proposed rule.
Risks: Failure to update the Department's section 504 regulations
to conform to statutory changes will interfere with the Department's
enforcement efforts and lead to confusion about the law's requirements
among entities that receive Federal financial assistance from the
Department or who participate in its federally conducted programs.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/16
Final Action........................ 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA60
[[Page 77811]]
DOJ--CRT
71. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of State and Local Governments
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department published an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, RIN
1190-AA61, that addressed issues relating to proposed revisions of both
the title II and title III ADA regulations in order to provide guidance
on the obligations of covered entities to make programs, services and
activities offered over the Web accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The Department has now divided the rulemakings in the
next step of the rulemaking process so as to proceed with separate
notices of proposed rulemakings for title II and title III. The title
III rulemaking on Web accessibility will continue under RIN 1190-AA61
and the title II rulemaking will continue under the new RIN 1190-AA65.
This rulemaking will provide specific guidance to State and local
governments in order to make services, programs, or activities offered
to the public via the Web accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires that State and local governments provide qualified
individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services,
or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of
their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue
burden. 42. U.S.C. 12132. The Internet as it is known today did not
exist when Congress enacted the ADA; yet today the Internet is
dramatically changing the way that governmental entities serve the
public. Taking advantage of new technology, citizens can now use State
and local government Web sites to correspond online with local
officials; obtain information about government services; renew library
books or driver's licenses; pay fines; register to vote; obtain tax
information and file tax returns; apply for jobs or benefits; and
complete numerous other civic tasks. These Government Web sites are
important because they allow programs and services to be offered in a
more dynamic, interactive way in order to increase citizen
participation; increase convenience and speed in obtaining information
or services; reduce costs in providing information about Government
services and administering programs; reduce the amount of paperwork;
and expand the possibilities of reaching new sectors of the community
or offering new programs or services. Many States and localities have
begun to improve the accessibility of portions of their Web sites.
However, full compliance with the ADA's promise to provide an equal
opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in and
benefit from all aspects of the programs, services, and activities
provided by State and local governments in today's technologically
advanced society will only occur if it is clear to public entities that
their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department
intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its
title II regulations to expressly address the obligations of public
entities to make the Web sites they use to provide programs,
activities, or services or information to the public accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities under the legal framework
established by the ADA. The proposed regulation will propose the scope
of the obligation to provide accessibility when persons with
disabilities access public Web sites, as well as propose the technical
standards necessary to comply with the ADA.
Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet.
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see computer
monitors may use screen readers--devices that speak the text that would
normally appear on a monitor. People who have difficulty using a
computer mouse can use voice recognition software to control their
computers with verbal commands. People with other types of disabilities
may use still other kinds of assistive technology. New and innovative
assistive technologies are being introduced every day.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for
example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities,
just as buildings not designed to accommodate people with disabilities
prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services. Web
designers may not realize how simple features built into a Web site
will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or
use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do not provide
captioning for videos or live events streamed over the web, leaving
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the
information that is being provided. Although an increasing number of
State and local Governments are making efforts to provide accessible
Web sites, because there are no specific ADA standards for Web site
accessibility, these Web sites vary in actual usability.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires that State and local
Governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal
access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would
fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or
activities or would impose an undue burden. 42. U.S.C. 12132.
Alternatives: The Department intends to consider various
alternatives for ensuring full access to Web sites of State and local
Governments and will solicit public comment addressing these
alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department anticipates that this
rule will be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule will
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the
environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal
Governments or communities. However, the Department believes that
revising its title II rule to clarify the obligations of State and
local Governments to provide accessible Web sites will significantly
increase the opportunities for citizens with disabilities to
participate in, and benefit from, State and local Government programs,
activities, and services. It will also ensure that individuals have
access to important information that is provided over the Internet,
including emergency information. The Department also believes that
providing accessible Web sites will benefit State and local Governments
as it will increase the numbers of citizens who can use these Web
sites, and thus improve the efficiency of delivery of services to the
public. In drafting this NPRM, the Department will attempt to minimize
the compliance costs to State and local Governments while ensuring the
benefits of compliance to persons with disabilities.
Risks: If the Department does not revise its ADA title II
regulations to address Web site accessibility, persons with
disabilities in many communities will continue to be unable to access
their State and local governmental services in the same manner
available to citizens without disabilities, and in some cases will not
be able to access those services at all.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460
[[Page 77812]]
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/21/11
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Split from RIN 1190-AA61.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA65
DOJ--CRT
72. Revision of Standards and Procedures for the Enforcement of Section
274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C.
1103(g); 8 U.S.C. 1324b; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 510; 28 U.S.C. 515-
519
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 0; 28 CFR 44.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice proposes to revise regulations
implementing section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act and to
reflect the new name of the office within the Department charged with
enforcing this statute. The proposed revisions are appropriate to
conform the regulations to the statutory text as amended, simplify and
add definitions of statutory terms, update and clarify the procedures
for filing and processing charges of discrimination, ensure effective
investigations of unfair immigration-related employment practices, and
update outdated references.
Statement of Need: The regulatory revisions are necessary to
conform the regulations to section 274B of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), as amended. The regulatory revisions also
simplify and add definitions of statutory terms, update and clarify the
procedures for filing and processing charges of discrimination, ensure
effective investigations of unfair immigration-related employment
practices, replace outdated references, and reflect the new name of the
office within the Department charged with enforcing this statute.
Summary of Legal Basis: Statutory Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1324b; 8
U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (g).
Alternatives: The Department believes that an NPRM is the most
appropriate, and for some revisions a necessary, method for achieving
the goals of the revisions. Issuing this NPRM is necessary to correct
outdated regulatory provisions and incorporate statutory changes to
section 274B of the INA. Likewise, revising the regulations to be
consistent with longstanding agency guidance and relevant case law is
appropriate and will reduce potential confusion about the law. Further,
because the regulations already include procedures for filing and
processing charges, it is appropriate to revise the regulations to
reflect updates to these processes and procedures. Finally, it is
appropriate to update the regulations to reflect the new name of the
office charged with enforcing the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department has determined that
this rule is not economically significant, that is, that the rule will
not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the
environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal
governments or communities. Any estimated costs to the public relate to
costs employers may incur familiarizing themselves with the rule,
updating their relevant policies if needed, and participating in a
voluntary training webinar. In the NPRM, the Department will be
soliciting public comment in response to its preliminary analysis
regarding the costs imposed by the rule. While not easily quantifiable
due to data limitations, the Department identified several benefits of
the rule, including: (1) Helping employers understand the law more
efficiently, (2) increasing public access to government services, and
(3) eliminating public confusion regarding two offices in the Federal
government with the same name.
Risks: Failure to update the regulations to conform to the
statutory amendments will interfere with the Department's enforcement
efforts. Further, failure to revise the regulations to reflect changes
to the filing and processing of charges and the new name of the office
charged with enforcing the law will lead to confusion among the public,
most specifically employers subject to the law's requirements and
workers whose rights are guaranteed by the law.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/00/16
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Alberto Ruisanchez, Deputy Special Counsel, OSC,
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 1425 New York Ave. NW.,
Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 616-5594, Fax: 202 616-
5509, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1190-AA71
DOJ--CRT
Final Rule Stage
73. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and
Title III of the ADA)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 42 U.S.C. 12134(a); 42 U.S.C.
12186(b)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the Department's
regulations implementing title II and title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR part 35 and 28 CFR part 36, to implement
changes to the ADA enacted in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public
Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sept. 25, 2008). The ADA Amendments Act
took effect on January 1, 2009. The ADA Amendments Act amended the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., to clarify
terms within the definition of disability and to establish standards
that must be applied to determine if a person has a covered disability.
These changes are intended to mitigate the effects of the Supreme
Court's decisions in Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999),
and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534, U.S. 184 (2002).
Specifically, the ADA Amendments Act (1) adds illustrative lists of
``major life activities,'' including ``major bodily functions,'' that
provide more examples of covered activities and covered conditions than
are now contained in agency regulations (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)); (2)
clarifies that a person who is ``regarded as'' having a disability does
not have to be regarded as being substantially limited in a major life
activity (42 U.S.C. 12103(3)); and (3) adds rules of construction
regarding the definition of disability that provide guidance in
applying the term
[[Page 77813]]
``substantially limits'' and prohibit consideration of mitigating
measures in determining whether a person has a disability (42 U.S.C.
12102(4)).
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's
ADA regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
which became effective on January 1, 2009. In addition, this rule is
necessary to make the Department's ADA title II and title III
regulations consistent with the ADA title I regulations issued on March
25, 2011 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
incorporating the ADA Amendments Act definition of disability.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: In order to ensure consistency in application of the
ADA Amendments Act across titles I, II and III of the ADA, this rule is
intended to be consistent with the language of the EEOC's rule
implementing the ADA Amendments Act with respect to title I of the ADA
(employment). The Department will, however, consider alternative
regulatory language suggested by commenters so long as it maintains
that consistency.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically
significant,'' that is, the rule will not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. According
to the Department's preliminary analysis, it is anticipated that the
rule will cost between $36.32 million and $61.8 million in the first
year (the year with the highest costs). The Department estimates that
in the first year of the implementation of the proposed rule,
approximately 142,000 students will take advantage of additional
testing accommodations than otherwise would have been able to without
the changes made to the definition of disability to conform to the ADA
Amendments Act. The Department believes that this will result in
benefits for many of these individuals in the form of significantly
higher earnings potential. The Department expects that the rule will
also have significant non-quantifiable benefits to persons with newly
covered disabilities in other contexts, such as benefits of non-
exclusion from the programs, services and activities of State and local
governments and public accommodations, and the benefits of access to
reasonable modifications of policies, practices and procedures to meet
their needs in a variety of contexts. In this NPRM, the Department will
be soliciting public comment in response to its preliminary analysis.
Risks: The ADA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the ADA
and to promulgate regulations implementing the law's requirements.
Failure to update the Department's regulations to conform to statutory
changes and to be consistent with the EEOC regulations under title I of
the ADA will interfere with the Department's enforcement efforts and
lead to confusion about the law's requirements among entities covered
by titles I, II and III of the ADA, as well as members of the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/30/14 79 FR 4839
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/31/14
Final Action........................ 01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA59
DOJ--CRT
74. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and
Audio Description
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Following its advance notice of proposed rulemaking
published on July 26, 2010, the Department plans to publish a proposed
rule addressing the requirements for captioning and video description
of movies exhibited in movie theatres under title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title III prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public
accommodation (private entities whose operations affect commerce and
that fall into one of twelve categories listed in the ADA). 42 U.S.C.
12181-12189. Title III makes it unlawful for places of public
accommodation, such as movie theaters, to discriminate against
individuals with disabilities in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. 12182[a]). Moreover,
title III prohibits places of public accommodation from affording an
unequal or lesser service to individuals or classes of individuals with
disabilities than is offered to other individuals (42 U.S.C.
12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)). Title III requires places of public accommodation
to take ``such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual
with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and
services, such as captioning and video description, unless the entity
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the
nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden,'' (42
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)).
Statement of Need: A significant-and increasing-proportion of
Americans have hearing or vision disabilities that prevent them from
fully and effectively understanding movies without captioning or audio
description. For persons with hearing and vision disabilities, the
unavailability of captioned or audio-described movies inhibits their
ability to socialize and fully take part in family outings and deprives
them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an important
aspect of American culture. Many individuals with hearing or vision
disabilities who commented on the Department's 2010 ANPRM remarked that
they have not been able to enjoy a commercial movie unless they watched
it on TV, or that when they took their children to the movies they
could not understand what they were seeing or discuss what was
happening with their children. Today, more and more movies are produced
with captions and audio description. However, despite the underlying
ADA obligation, the advancement of digital technology and the
availability of captioned and audio-described films, many movie
theaters are still not exhibiting captioned or audio-described movies,
and when they do exhibit them, they are only for a few showings of a
movie, and usually at off-times. Recently, a number of theater
companies have committed to provide greater availability of captioning
and
[[Page 77814]]
audio description. In some cases, these have been nationwide
commitments; in other cases it has only been in a particular State or
locality. A uniform Federal ADA requirement for captioning and audio
description is necessary to ensure that access to movies for persons
with hearing and vision disabilities is not dictated by the
individual's residence or the presence of litigation in their locality.
In addition, the movie theater industry is in the process of converting
its movie screens to use digital technology, and the Department
believes that it will be extremely helpful to provide timely guidance
on the ADA requirements for captioning and audio description so that
the industry may factor this into its conversion efforts and minimize
costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments that
propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the goal of
providing access to movies for persons with hearing and vision
disabilities. However, the Department believes that the baseline
alternative of not providing such access would be inconsistent with the
provisions of title III of the ADA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically
significant,'' that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. In the
NPRM, the Department solicited public comment in response to its
preliminary analysis regarding the costs imposed by the rule.
Risks: Without the proposed changes to the Department's title III
regulation, persons with hearing and vision disabilities will continue
to be denied access to movies shown in movie theaters and movie theater
owners and operators will not understand what they are required to do
in order to provide auxiliary aids and services to patrons with hearing
and vision disabilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43467
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/24/11
NPRM................................ 08/01/14 79 FR 44975
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 09/08/14 79 FR 53146
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/30/14
NPRM Extended Comment Period End.... 12/01/14
Final Action........................ 05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA63
DOJ--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)
Proposed Rule Stage
75. Motions To Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings
Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103,
1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1252,
1254a, 1255, 1282, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746;
sec 2 Reorg Plan No 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953, Comp, p 1002; sec 203
of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat 2196-200; sec 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L.
106-386, 114 Stat 1527-29, 1531-32; sec 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114
Stat 2763A-326-328; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1208.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice (Department) is planning to
propose to amend the regulations of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) by establishing procedures for the filing and
adjudication of motions to reopen removal, deportation, and exclusion
proceedings based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
This proposed rule is in response to Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-
C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009), in which the Attorney General directed
EOIR to develop such regulations. The Department is also planning to
propose to amend the EOIR regulations to provide that ineffective
assistance of counsel may constitute extraordinary circumstances that
may excuse the failure to file an asylum application within one year
after the date of arrival in the United States.
Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to comply with
Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009), in
which the Attorney General directed EOIR to develop regulations
governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings
before the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The
purpose of this proposed rule is to establish uniform procedural and
substantive requirements for the filing of motions to reopen based upon
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and to provide a uniform
standard for adjudicating such motions.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis for the
authority for this regulation is set forth in the above abstract.
Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments it
may receive regarding achievable alternatives that will still
accomplish the goal of setting forth a framework for claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel that supports the integrity of
immigration proceedings.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be economically
significant, that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Risks: Without the proposed changes to the Department's
regulations, the Department will not have complied with the Attorney
General's directive in Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec.
1 (A.G. 2009) and the procedural and substantive requirements for
filing--and the standards for adjudicating--motions to reopen based
upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will lack uniformity.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/00/16
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Jean King, General Counsel, Department of Justice,
[[Page 77815]]
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5197 Leesburg Pike, Suite
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
RIN: 1125-AA68
DOJ--EOIR
76. Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney
Representatives
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1155; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C.
1182; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 1229; 8 U.S.C. 1229a; 8 U.S.C. 1229b; 8
U.S.C. 1229c; 8 U.S.C. 1231; 8 U.S.C. 1232; 8 U.S.C. 1252b; 8 U.S.C.
1254a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1324d; 8 U.S.C. 1330; 8 U.S.C. 1361; 8
U.S.C. 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 510; 28 U.S.C. 1746; sec 2 Reorg
Plan No 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp, 1002; sec 203 of Pub. L. 105-
100, 111 Stat 2196-200; sec 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat
1527-29, 1531-1532; sec 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat 2763 A-326 to
-328
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1292.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the regulations
governing the requirements and procedures for authorizing the
representatives of nonprofit religious, charitable, social service, or
similar organizations to represent aliens in proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland
Security.
Statement of Need: The Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) program
addresses the critical and ongoing shortage of qualified legal
representation for underserved populations in immigration cases before
federal administrative agencies. Through the R&A program, EOIR permits
qualified non-attorneys to represent persons before the DHS, the
immigration courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). For
over 30 years, the R&A regulations have remained largely unchanged,
despite structural changes in the government, the changing realities of
the immigration system, the inability of non-profit organizations to
meet the increased need for legal representation under the current
regulations, and the surge in fraud and abuse by unscrupulous
organizations and individuals preying on indigent and vulnerable
populations.
The proposed rule seeks to address the critical and ongoing
shortage of qualified legal representation for underserved populations
in immigration cases before federal administrative agencies by revising
the eligibility requirements and procedures for recognizing
organizations and accrediting their representatives to provide
immigration legal services to underserved populations. The proposed
rule also imposes greater oversight over recognized organizations and
their representatives in order to protect against potential abuse of
vulnerable immigrant populations by unscrupulous organizations and
individuals.
Summary of Legal Basis: The proposed rule is a revision of current
regulations that are authorized under 8 U.S.C. 292, regarding
authorization to practice before the immigration courts and the Board.
Alternatives: The R&A regulations have been comprehensively
examined in light of various issues that have arisen and input has been
solicited from the public on how to address in amended regulations
various developments over the past 30 years. The proposed rule is the
product of both internal and external deliberations, and the proposed
rule directly addresses alternatives approaches to the current
regulations that the Department has either decided to adopt or reject
in the proposed rule. The Department will consider any public comments
that propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the
goals of this proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be economically
significant, that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. The
proposed rule, like the current regulations, does not assess any fees
on an organization to apply for initial recognition or accreditation,
to renew recognition or accreditation, or to extend recognition.
Risks: The purpose of this proposed rule is to promote effective
and efficient administration of justice before DHS and EOIR by
increasing the availability of competent non-lawyer representation for
underserved immigrant populations. The proposed rule seeks to
accomplish this goal by amending the requirements for recognition and
accreditation to increase the availability of qualified representation
for primarily low-income and indigent persons while protecting the
public from fraud and abuse by unscrupulous organizations and
individuals. Without the proposed changes, the Department will be
limited in its ability to expand the availability of non-lawyer
representation and to provide increased oversight over recognized
organizations and their representatives.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/01/15 80 FR 59514
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/30/15
Final Action........................ 09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Public Meeting notice 77 FR 9590 (Feb. 17,
2012).
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Jean King, General Counsel, Department of Justice,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5197 Leesburg Pike, Suite
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
RIN: 1125-AA72
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Introduction
The Department's Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda is driven by Secretary
Perez's commitment to building a stronger America through shared
prosperity. This means more opportunity for workers to acquire the
skills they need to succeed, to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's
work, for workers and employers to compete on a level playing field,
for veterans to thrive in the civilian economy, for people with
disabilities to be productive members of the labor force, for workers
to retire with dignity, and for people to work in a safe environment
with the full protection of our anti-discrimination laws.
In recent years, the Department of Labor has taken bold steps to
use our regulatory authorities to address many of the most critical
challenges facing workers and their families.
[[Page 77816]]
We took action to give home care workers a raise by guaranteeing
them minimum wage and overtime for the hard work that they do. We
required mine operators to limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which
will dramatically reduce black lung disease and save lives.
We updated our regulations to require federal contractors and
subcontractors to treat applicants and employees without regard to
their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Along with the Department of Education, we have proposed new
regulations that will transform our nation's workforce system, giving
workers the chance to develop the skills that will prepare them to
succeed in 21st century jobs and careers. We proposed extending
overtime protections to roughly 5 million workers.
We proposed important new conflict of interest protections for
401(k) and IRA investors that would require retirement advisors to put
their clients' best interests before their own profits.
Working with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council we proposed
regulations that will implement the President's Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces Executive Order, holding federal contractors accountable
when they put workers' safety, hard-earned wages and basic workplace
rights at risk.
We finalized a rule to help close the persistent pay gap that
exists between men and women by providing employees working on federal
contracts with real pay transparency and openness enabling them to
freely talk about their compensation.
The 2015 Regulatory Plan highlights the Labor Department's most
noteworthy and significant rulemaking efforts, with each addressing
these top priorities of its regulatory agencies: Employee Benefits
Security Administration (EBSA), Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS),
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), Veterans' Employment
Service (VETS), and Wage and Hour Division (WHD). These regulatory
priorities exemplify the five components of the Secretary's opportunity
agenda:
Training more people, including veterans and people with
disabilities, to have the skills they need for the in-demand jobs of
the 21st century;
ensuring that individuals have the peace of mind that
comes with access to health care, retirement, and federal workers'
compensation benefits when they need them;
safeguarding a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for
all hardworking Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual
orientation, or gender identity;
giving workers a voice in their workplaces; and
protecting the safety and health of workers so they do not
have to risk their lives for a paycheck.
Under Secretary Perez's leadership, the Department continues its
commitment to ensuring that collaboration, consensus-building and
extensive stakeholder outreach are integral to all of its regulatory
efforts. Successful rulemaking requires that we build a big table and
keep an open mind.
Training More Workers and Job-Seekers for Twenty-First Century Jobs
Sustained economic growth requires a fundamental transformation of
the workforce development system, building new partnerships, engaging
employers, emphasizing proven strategies like apprenticeships, and
preparing people for the demands of the 21st century economy as never
before. The Department's regulatory priorities reflect the Secretary's
vision for a modern job-driven workforce system that helps businesses
stay on the competitive cutting edge and helps workers punch their
ticket to the middle class.
ETA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April
16, 2015, that implements the important changes made to the public
workforce system by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
(Pub. L. 113-128), signed by the President on July 22, 2014, and
replacing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amending the
Wagner-Peyser Act. This NPRM enables the Department to implement WIOA,
empowering the public workforce system and its partners to increase
employment, retention, and earnings of participants, meet the skill
requirements of employers, and enhance the productivity and
competitiveness of the nation.\1\ The Department is analyzing comments
received and developing a Final Rule. In addition, as required by WIOA,
the Departments of Education and Labor issued a joint NPRM on April 16,
2015, to implement the changes that WIOA makes to the public workforce
system regarding Combined and Unified State Plans, performance
accountability, and the one-stop delivery system and one-stop
centers.\2\ The Departments are analyzing the comments received and
developing a Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (RIN: 1205-AB73).
\2\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Joint Rule for
Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and
the One-Stop System Joint Provisions (RIN: 1205-AB74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's Civil Rights Center (CRC) will issue a
proposed rule to implement the nondiscrimination provisions in Section
188 of WIOA. The rule would update the regulations implementing the
nondiscrimination obligations in Section 188 of WIA to address current
compliance issues in the workforce system, and to incorporate
developments and interpretations of existing nondiscrimination law into
the workforce development system. To ensure no gap in coverage between
the effective date of WIOA and this rulemaking, CRC issued a Final Rule
that makes only technical revisions to the WIA Section 188 rule,
changing references from ``WIA'' to ``WIOA.'' \3\ The current Final
Rule ultimately would ultimately be superseded by any Final Rule
arising from the subsequent NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal
Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2014 (RIN:
1291-A37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA issued a NPRM on November 6, 2015 that proposes
updated equal opportunity regulations implementing the National
Apprenticeship Act of 1937, which prohibit discrimination in registered
apprenticeship on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
and sex, and which require that program sponsors take affirmative
action to provide equal opportunity. Most notably, the proposed rule
would update equal opportunity standards to include age (40 and older)
and disability among the list of protected bases. It would also
strengthen the affirmative action provisions by detailing mandatory
actions that sponsors must take, and by requiring affirmative action
for individuals with disabilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of
Regulations (RIN: 1205-AB59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring Access to Health Care, Retirement, and Workers' Compensation
Benefits
The American Dream does not end when a person retires. A
financially secure retirement is a fundamental pillar of the middle
class. People need access to retirement savings vehicles; and when they
work hard and save responsibly, they need access to sound
[[Page 77817]]
retirement investment advice from someone looking out for their best
interest. The Department has a regulatory program designed do exactly
that.
Last spring EBSA proposed a rule to help assure workers'
retirement security by clarifying the circumstances under which a
person will be considered a ``fiduciary'' when providing investment
advice related to retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and
other employee benefit plans, and to participants, beneficiaries, and
owners of such plans and accounts. The proposed rule includes a
prohibited transaction exemption for any advice that raises any
conflict of interest concerns so that the advice has to first be
provided pursuant to a contract where the advisor agrees to provide the
advice in the best interest of the client. The underlying principle is
very simple and rooted in basic common sense: if you want to give
financial advice, you have to put your clients' best interests first,
and not your own. EBSA continues to review the extensive public
comments submitted on the proposed rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Conflict of Interest Rule: Investment Advice (RIN: 1210-
AB32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA recognizes that around one-third of American workers
lack access to a retirement plan at work. Inadequate retirement savings
places stress on various state and federal retirement income support
programs. Some states have passed laws to set up state-based auto-
enrollment IRA arrangements for workers whose employers don't offer a
plan. However, many of these states remain concerned about preemption
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. At the
President's direction on July 13, 2015, EBSA plans to publish a
proposed rule to clarify how states can move forward, including with
respect to requirements to automatically enroll employees, and offer
coverage in ways that are consistent with federal laws governing
employee benefit plans.
EBSA will also continue to issue guidance implementing the health
reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act, giving more people
greater access to quality medical care. 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 of these regulations are joint
rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and
Treasury.
The Department also promulgates regulations to ensure that federal
workers' compensation benefits programs are fairly administered:
OWCP will issue a Final Rule under the Black Lung Benefits
Act that will address claimants' and coal mine operators'
responsibility to disclose medical information developed in connection
with a claim.\6\ In addition, the Final Rule may also clarify a coal
mine operator's liability for paying benefits while seeking
modification of a decision to award benefits and may clarify the
evidence submission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical Evidence (RIN: 1240-AA10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWCP will issue an additional NPRM under the Black Lung
Benefits Act that would address how medical providers are reimbursed
for covered services rendered to coal miners, including the possibility
of modernizing and standardizing payment methodologies and fee
schedules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Black Lung Benefits Act: Benefit Payments (RIN: 1240-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguarding Fair Pay for All Americans
The Department's regulatory agenda prioritizes ensuring that all
Americans receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and are not
discriminated against with respect to hiring, employment, or benefits
on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
The Department takes a robust approach to implementing its wage-and-
hour and nondiscrimination regulations through education, outreach and
strategic enforcement across industries. These regulations are grounded
in a commitment to an inclusive and diverse workforce and rewarding
hard work with a fair wage to provide workers with a real pathway to
middle class jobs.
WHD plans to publish a Final Rule revising the Fair Labor
Standards Act's (FLSA's) overtime exemptions, as directed by a March
2014 Presidential Memorandum. The FLSA generally requires covered
employers to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage for
all hours worked, and one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek (``overtime''). However,
there are a number of exemptions from the FLSA's minimum wage and
overtime requirements, including an exemption for bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional employees. In line with the
Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary to modernize and
streamline the existing overtime regulations for these ``white collar''
employees to ensure that hardworking middle-class workers are not
denied overtime protections that Congress intended, the Department
issued an NPRM that would raise the salary threshold. The Department is
currently analyzing comments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive,
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees
(RIN: 1235-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHD will issue a proposed rule to establish the ability of
employees of federal contractors to earn seven days of paid sick leave
per year, implementing Executive Order 13706, signed by President Obama
on September 7, 2015, enabling these workers to use leave to care for
themselves, family members, or loved ones without fear of losing their
paychecks or their jobs.
Giving Workers a Voice in Their Workplaces
There is a direct link throughout our nation's history between a
vibrant middle class and the power of worker voice. The economy is
strong when the middle class is strong, and the middle class is strong
when workers have a seat at the table, when they have a chance to
organize and negotiate for their fair share of the value they helped
create. By contrast, it's not a coincidence that middle-class wage
stagnation coincides with a decline in the percentage of workers
represented by unions. The Department's regulatory program therefore
promotes policies that give workers a voice on the job.
OFCCP recently issued a Final Rule implementing Executive
Order 13665, signed by the President on April 8, 2014, prohibiting
discrimination by Federal contractors and subcontractors against
certain of their employees for disclosing compensation information.
This Executive Order was intended to address policies that limit the
ability to advocate for themselves about their pay and that prohibit
employee conversations about compensation, which can serve as a
significant barrier to Federal enforcement of the laws against
compensation discrimination.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Prohibitions Against Pay Secrecy Policies and Actions (RIN:
1250-AA06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLMS plans to publish a Final Rule that will better align
our regulations with the statutory text of the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to create greater balance between
union and employer/consultant reporting requirements in situations
where employers engage consultants to persuade employees concerning
their rights to organize and bargain collectively. This is one
important step to enhance workers' abilities to make
[[Page 77818]]
informed choices about representation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations
Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA (RIN: 1245-AA03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers
No one should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood,
and a nation built on the dignity of work must provide safe working
conditions for its people. Through our rulemaking, we are committed to
protecting workers in all kinds of workplaces, including above- and
below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal mines, and we want to ensure that
benefits programs are available to workers and their families when they
are injured on the job. So many workplace injuries, illnesses and
fatalities are preventable. They not only put workers in harm's way,
they jeopardize their economic security, often forcing families out of
the middle class and into poverty. The Department's safety and health
regulatory proposals are based on the responsibility of employers to
provide workers with workplaces that do not threaten their safety or
health and we reject the false choice between worker safety and
economic growth. Our efforts will both save lives and improve
employers' bottom lines.
OSHA's top priority is a Final Rule aimed at curbing lung
cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney
disease in America's workers by lowering worker exposure to crystalline
silica, which kills hundreds and sickens thousands more each year. OSHA
estimates that the proposed rule would ultimately save nearly 700 lives
and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis annually. OSHA held public
hearings over nearly a month last spring in Washington, DC, during
which over 200 industry, labor, and public health stakeholders
participated. The post-hearing brief period ended on August 18,
2014.\11\ As a part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and
healthy work environments, MSHA will utilize information provided by
OSHA to undertake regulatory action related to silica exposure in
mines.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1218-
AB70).
\12\ Respirable Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1219-AB36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is developing a Final Rule that will address
employers' electronic submission of data required by agency regulations
governing the Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries. An
updated and modernized reporting system would enable a more efficient
and timely collection of data--including by leveraging data already
maintained electronically by many large employers--and would improve
the accuracy and availability of relevant records and statistics, in
addition to leveraging data already maintained electronically by many
large employers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (RIN:
1218-AC49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA issued a proposed rule that would require underground
mine operators to equip certain mobile machines with proximity
detection systems.\14\ This builds on a Final Rule issued in January
2015 that addressed the danger that miners face when working near
continuous mining machines in underground coal mines.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in
Underground Mines (RIN: 1219-AB78).
\15\ Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines
in Underground Coal Mines (RIN: 1219-AB65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The
Department is committed to smart regulations that ensure the health
welfare and safety of all working Americans and foster economic growth,
job creation, and competitiveness of American business. The
Department's Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda also aims to achieve more
efficient and less burdensome regulations through a retrospective
review of the Labor Department regulations.
In August 2011, as part of a government-wide response to the E.O.,
the Department published its ``Plan for Retrospective Analysis of
Existing Rules.'' (This plan, and each subsequent update, can be found
at www.dol.gov/regulations/.) The current regulatory agenda includes 23
retrospective review projects, which are listed below pursuant to
section 6 of E.O. 13563. More information about completed rulemakings
no longer included in the plan can be found on www.Reginfo.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is expected to
Agency Regulatory Identifier Title of rulemaking significantly reduce burdens on
No. small businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA................. 1210-AB47................ Amendment of Abandoned Yes.
Plan Program.
EBSA................. 1210-AB63................ 21st Century Initiative To Be Determined.
to Modernize the Form
5500 Series and
Implementing and Related
Regulations.
ETA.................. 1205-AB59................ Equal Employment To Be Determined.
Opportunity in
Apprenticeship and
Training, Amendment of
Regulations.
ETA.................. 1205-AB62................ Implementation of Total No.
Unemployment Rate
Extended Benefits
Trigger and Rounding
Rule.
ETA.................. 1205-AB75................ Modernizing the Permanent To Be Determined.
Labor Certification
Program (PERM).
MSHA................. 1219-AB72................ Criteria and Procedures To Be Determined.
for Proposed Assessment
of Civil Penalties (Part
100).
OFCCP................ 1250-AA05................ Sex Discrimination To Be Determined.
Guidelines.
OSHA................. 1218-AC34................ Bloodborne Pathogens..... To Be Determined.
OSHA................. 1218-AC67................ Standard Improvement To Be Determined.
Project--Phase IV (SIP
IV).
OSHA................. 1218-AC74................ Review/Lookback of OSHA To Be Determined.
Chemical Standards.
OSHA................. 1218-AC81................ Cranes and Derricks in Yes.
Construction: Amendments.
OSHA................. 1218-AC82................ Process Safety Management To Be Determined.
and Flammable Liquids.
OSHA................. 1218-AC87................ Updating OSHA Standards To Be Determined.
Based on National
Consensus Standards (Eye
and Face Protection).
OSHA................. 1218-AC49................ Improve Tracking of No.
Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses.
OSHA................. 1218-AC76................ Streamlining of To Be Determined.
Provisions on State
Plans for Occupational
Safety and Health.
OSHA................. 1218-.................... Revocation of Obsolete To Be Determined.
PELs.
OSHA................. 1218-.................... Powered Industrial Trucks To Be Determined.
OSHA................. 1218-.................... Power Presses............ To Be Determined.
OSHA................. 1218-.................... Lock-Out/Tag-Out Update.. To Be Determined.
[[Page 77819]]
OWCP................. 1240-AA11................ Black Lung Benefits Act: To Be Determined.
Medical Benefit Payments.
OWCP................. 1240-AA09................ Longshore and Harbor No.
Workers' Compensation
Act: Transmission of
Documents and
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)
Proposed Rule Stage
77. Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Contractors, Executive
Order 13706
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 30, 2016.
Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal
Contractors (80 FR 54697).
Abstract: Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for
Federal Contractors (80 FR 54697) establishes paid sick leave for
Federal contractors and subcontractors. The Executive Order indicates
that Executive Departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted
by law, ensure that new contracts, contract-like instruments, and
solicitations as described in section 6 of the Order, include a clause,
which the contractor and any subcontractors shall incorporate into
lower-tier subcontracts, specifying that all employees, in the
performance of the contract or any subcontract thereunder, shall earn
not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.
Consistent with the Executive Order, the Department of Labor will issue
implementing regulations.
Statement of Need: On September 7, 2015, President Barack Obama
signed Executive Order 13706 Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal
Contractors. The Executive Order states that the Order seeks to
increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties
that contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that employees on
those contracts can earn up to 7 days or more of paid sick leave
annually, including paid leave allowing for family care. The Order
states that providing access to paid sick leave will improve the health
and performance of employees of Federal contractors and bring benefits
packages at Federal contractors in line with model employers, ensuring
that they remain competitive employers in the search for dedicated and
talented employees. The Order indicates that [t]hese savings and
quality improvements will lead to improved economy and efficiency in
Government procurement.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2 of the Executive Order states
that Executive Departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted
by law, ensure that new contracts, contract-like instruments, and
solicitations (collectively referred to as contacts), as described in
section 6 of the order, include a clause, which the contractor and any
subcontractors shall incorporate into lower-tier subcontracts,
specifying, as a condition of payment, that all employees in the
performance of the contract or any subcontract thereunder, shall earn
not less than 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The
Order goes on to indicate that a contractor may not set a limit on the
total accrual of paid sick leave per year, or at any point in time, at
less than 56 hours. The Order goes on to describe the purposes for
which the employee may use the paid the sick leave. The Executive Order
requires the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations implementing the
E.O. by September 30, 2016.
Alternatives: To be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Executive Order indicates
benefits associated with the paid sick leave E.O. include improved
health and performance of employees of Federal contractors, ensuring
that contractors remain competitive in line with model employers, and
improved economy and efficiency in Government procurement.
Costs will be determined as part of the NPRM.
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Robert Waterman, Compliance Specialist, Department
of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-
3010, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-0805, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1235-AA13
DOL--WHD
Final Rule Stage
78. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive,
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1) (Fair Labor Standards Act)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department proposes to update the regulations
governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees
(white collar workers) are entitled to the Fair Labor Standards Act's
minimum wage and overtime pay protections. Key provisions of the
proposed rule include: (1) Setting the standard salary level required
for exemption at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time
salaried workers (projected to be $970 per week, or $50,440 annually,
in 2016); (2) increasing the total annual compensation requirement
needed to exempt highly compensated employees to the annualized value
of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers
($122,148 annually); and (3) establishing a mechanism for automatically
updating the salary and compensation levels going forward to ensure
that they will continue to provide a useful and effective test for
exemption. The Department last updated these regulations in 2004,
which, among other items, set the standard salary level at not less
than $455 per week.
Statement of Need: On March 13, 2014, President Obama signed a
Presidential Memorandum directing the Department to update the
regulations defining which white collar workers are protected by the
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime standards. 79 FR 18737 (Apr. 3, 2014).
Consistent with the
[[Page 77820]]
President's goal of ensuring workers are paid a fair day's pay for a
fair day's work, the memorandum instructed the Department to look for
ways to modernize and simplify the regulations while ensuring that the
FLSA's intended overtime protections are fully implemented.
Summary of Legal Basis: There are a number of exemptions from the
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements. Section 13(a)(1) of the
FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1), exempts from both minimum wage
and overtime protection ``any employee employed in a bona fide
executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or in the
capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited
from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the
provisions of [the Administrative Procedure Act] . . .).'' The FLSA
does not define the terms ``executive,'' ``administrative,''
``professional,''' or ``outside salesman.'' Pursuant to Congress' grant
of rulemaking authority, the Department in 1938 issued the first
regulations at 29 CFR part 541, defining the scope of the section
13(a)(1) exemptions. Because Congress explicitly delegated to the
Secretary of Labor the power to define and delimit the specific terms
of the exemptions through notice and comment rulemaking, the
regulations so issued have the binding effect of law. See Batterton v.
Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425 n.9 (1977).
Alternatives: Alternatives were listed in the Department's NPRM
published in the Federal Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of the costs and
benefits is included in the Department's NPRM published in the Federal
Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
Risks: Risks were discussed in the NPRM published in the Federal
Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/06/15 80 FR 38516
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/04/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Mary Ziegler, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Policy, Wage and Hour (WHD), Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room S-3502, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA11
DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)
Proposed Rule Stage
79. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Section 503(f) of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 22, 2015, Public Law 113-
128.
Final, Statutory, January 18, 2016.
Abstract: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). WIOA repeals
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amends the Wagner-Peyser
Act. (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) The Department of Labor issued a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 16, 2015 that proposed to
implement the changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system in
regulations. Through the NPRM, the Department proposed ways to carry
out the purposes of WIOA to provide workforce investment activities,
through State and local workforce development systems, that increase
employment, retention, and earnings of participants, meet the skill
requirements of employers, and enhance the productivity and
competitiveness of the Nation. The Department is analyzing the comments
received and developing a final rule.
Statement of Need: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) into
law. WIOA repeals the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (29 U.S.C.
2801 et seq.) and amends the Wagner-Peyser Act. As a result, the WIA
and Wagner-Peyser regulations no longer reflect current law and we must
change. Therefore, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to implement the WIOA. The Department
is moving forward in analyzing comments received and developing a final
rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128), signed by the President on July 22, 2014.
Section 503(f) of WIOA requires that the Department issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and then Final Rule that implements the
changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system in regulations.
Alternatives: Since Congress statutorily directed the Department of
Labor to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Final Rule
that implements the changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system
there is no alternative.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
Risks: Undetermined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/16/15 80 FR 20690
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/15/15
Analyze Comments.................... 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training, Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, Phone:
202 639-2700.
RIN: 1205-AB73
DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
80. Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-
Governmental Employees
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135 (ERISA sec 505); 29 U.S.C. 1002
(ERISA sec 3(2))
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2510.3-2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: About one-third of American workers lack access to a
retirement plan at work. For older Americans, inadequate retirement
savings can mean sacrificing or skimping on food, housing, health care,
transportation, and other necessities. President Obama has long
supported federal legislation to require automatic enrollment of new
workers in payroll deduction IRAs if they lack access to a 401(k)-type
plan through their employer. In the absence of Congressional action,
some states have
[[Page 77821]]
passed laws to set up state-based savings plans and require employers
not currently offering workplace plans to automatically enroll
employees into IRAs. Others are looking at ways to encourage employers
to provide coverage under state-administered 401(k)-type plans or other
retirement alternatives including IRAs and the Treasury's new starter
savings program, myRA. However, many of these states remain concerned
about preemption by ERISA. On July 13, 2015, the President directed the
Department to publish a proposed rule clarifying how states may offer
retirement savings arrangements to private-sector employees in ways
that are consistent with federal laws governing employee benefit plans.
The proposal will set forth circumstances in which a state could
establish a payroll deduction savings program, with an automatic
enrollment feature, without giving rise to an employee pension benefit
plan under ERISA.
Statement of Need: The proposal responds to the President's
directive to the Department of Labor, issued at the 2015 White House
Conference on Aging, to publish a proposed regulation by the end of
2015 to support the efforts of a growing number of states trying to
promote broader access to workplace retirement saving opportunities for
America's workers. The regulation would clarify that state savings
initiatives would not cause the establishment of ERISA covered employee
benefit plans, so long as the conditions of the regulation are met.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 505 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1135,
provides the Secretary of Labor with broad authority to prescribe such
regulations as he finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the
provisions of Title I of the Act. Section 3(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
1002, defines the term ``employee pension benefit plan''. The
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 2510.3-2 clarify the term ``employee
pension benefit plan'' by identifying certain specific plans, funds and
programs that do not constitute ``employee pension benefit plans''.
Alternatives: Since the President directed the Department to
publish a proposed rule clarifying how states may offer retirement
savings arrangement to private-sector employees, there is no
alternative.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
Risks: Undetermined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, Deputy Director, 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, Fax: 202 219-7291.
RIN: 1210-AB71
DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
Proposed Rule Stage
81. Respirable Crystalline Silica
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Current standards limit exposures to quartz (crystalline
silica) in respirable dust. 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. The
formula is designed to limit exposures to 0.1 mg/m3 (100 ug/m3) of
silica. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(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 section 101 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' exposures to
respirable crystalline silica.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401,
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1219-AB36
DOL--MSHA
82. Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground
Mines
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) published a
proposed rule that address the hazards miners face when working near
mobile equipment in underground mines. MSHA has concluded, from
investigations of accidents involving mobile equipment and other
reports, that action is needed to protect miner safety. Mobile
equipment can pin,
[[Page 77822]]
crush, or strike a miner working near the equipment. Proximity
detection technology can prevent these types of accidents. The proposed
rule would strengthen the protection for underground miners by reducing
the potential of pinning, crushing, or striking hazards associated with
working close to mobile equipment.
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(a) 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 preliminary
regulatory economic analysis to accompany the proposed rule.
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
RFI Comment Period End.............. 04/02/10
NPRM................................ 09/02/15 80 FR 53070
Scheduling of Public Hearing........ 09/28/15 80 FR 58229
Public Hearing--Denver, Colorado 10/ 10/06/15
06/2015.
Public Hearing--Birmingham, Alabama 10/08/15
10/08/2015.
Public Hearing--Beaver, West 10/19/15
Virginia 10/19/2015.
Public Hearing--Indianapolis, 10/29/15
Indiana 10/29/2015.
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/01/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401,
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1219-AB65
RIN: 1219-AB78
DOL--MSHA
Final Rule Stage
83. Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815; 30 U.S.C. 820; 30 U.S.C. 957
CFR Citation: 30 CFR 100.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) revises
the process for proposing civil penalties. The assessment of civil
penalties is a key component in MSHA's strategy to enforce safety and
health standards. Congress intended that the imposition of civil
penalties would induce mine operators to be proactive in their approach
to mine safety and health, and take necessary action to prevent safety
and health hazards before they occur. MSHA believes that the procedures
for assessing civil penalties can be revised to improve the efficiency
of the Agency's efforts and to facilitate the resolution of enforcement
issues.
Statement of Need: Section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) requires MSHA to assess a civil penalty
for a violation of a mandatory health or safety standard or violation
of any provision of the Mine Act. The mine operator has 30 days from
receipt of the proposed assessment to contest it before the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission), an independent
adjudicatory agency established under the Mine Act. A proposed
assessment that is not contested within 30 days becomes a final order
of the Commission. A proposed assessment that is contested within 30
days proceeds to the Commission for adjudication. The proposed rule
would promote consistency, objectivity, and efficiency in the proposed
assessment of civil penalties. When issuing citations or orders,
inspectors are required to evaluate safety and health conditions, and
make decisions about the statutory criteria related to assessing
penalties. The proposed changes in the measures of the evaluation
criteria would result in fewer areas of disagreement and earlier
resolution of enforcement issues. The proposal would require conforming
changes to the Mine Citation/Order form (MSHA Form 7000-3).
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 104 of the Mine Act requires MSHA
to issue citations or orders to mine operators for any violations of a
mandatory health or safety standard, rule, order, or regulation
promulgated under the Mine Act. Sections 105 and 110 of the Mine Act
provide for assessment of these penalties.
Alternatives: The proposal would include several alternatives in
the preamble and requests comments on them.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA's proposed rule includes an
estimate of the anticipated costs and benefits.
Risks: MSHA's existing procedures for assessing civil penalties can
be revised to improve the efficiency of the Agency's efforts and to
facilitate the resolution of enforcement issues. In the overwhelming
majority of contested cases before the Commission, the issue is not
whether a violation occurred. Rather, the parties disagree on the
gravity of the violation, the degree of mine operator negligence, and
other criterion. The proposed changes should result in fewer areas of
disagreement and earlier resolution of enforcement issues, which should
result in fewer contests of violations or proposed assessments.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/31/14 79 FR 44494
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/29/14
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 09/16/14 79 FR 55408
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 12/03/14
NPRM Notice of Public Hearings, 11/07/14 79 FR 66345
Close of Comment Period.
NPRM Notice of Public Hearings, 01/09/15
Close of Comment Period End.
[[Page 77823]]
NPRM Notice of Public Hearing; 12/31/14 79 FR 78749
Extension of Comment Period; Close
of Record.
Extension of Comment Period End..... 03/12/15
NPRM Comment Period Extended; Close 02/10/15 80 FR 7393
of Record.
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 03/31/15
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401,
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1219-AB72
DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Final Rule Stage
84. Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 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 [mu]g/m3 and 25
[mu]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. ASTM
International 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.
The NPRM was published on September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56274). OSHA
received over 1,700 comments from the public on the proposed rule, and
over 200 stakeholders provided testimony during public hearings on the
proposal. The agency is now reviewing and considering the evidence in
the rulemaking record.
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. From 2009 to 2013 silicosis was identified on over 500 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 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.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule was 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
recognized 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: OSHA preliminarily estimated the
cost of the proposed rule to be $664 million per year. OSHA
preliminarily estimated that the proposed rule would prevent nearly 700
deaths per year and prevent over 1,600 cases of silicosis annually once
the full effect of the rule are realized, and would result in monetized
benefits of $2.8 to $4.7 billion annually.
Risks: A detailed risk analysis is under way.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed SBREFA Report............. 12/19/03
Initiated Peer Review of Health 05/22/09
Effects and Risk Assessment.
Completed Peer Review............... 01/24/10
NPRM................................ 09/12/13 78 FR 56274
[[Page 77824]]
NPRM Comment Period Extended; Notice 10/31/13 78 FR 65242
of Intention to Appear at Pub
Hearing; Scheduling Pub Hearing.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 01/29/14 79 FR 4641
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 02/11/14
Informal Public Hearing............. 03/18/14
Post Hearing Briefs Ends............ 08/18/14
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AB70
DOL--OSHA
85. Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
making 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
rulemaking 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, and a modification to 29 CFR part
1904.35 to clarify an employee's right to report injury and illnesses
to their employer without fear of retaliation.
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 authorize 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: OSHA estimates that this final rule
will have economic costs of $15 million per year. The Agency believes
that the annual benefits, while unquantified, significantly exceed the
annual costs. These benefits include increased prevention of workplace
injuries and illnesses as a result of expanded access to timely,
establishment-specific injury/illness information by OSHA, employers,
employees, employee representatives, potential employees, customers,
potential customers, and researchers.
Risks: Analysis of risks is still under development.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Meetings................ 05/25/10 75 FR 24505
NPRM................................ 11/08/13 78 FR 67254
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/06/14
Notice of Public Meeting on 01/09/ 11/15/13 78 FR 68782
2013.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 01/07/14 79 FR 778
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 03/08/14
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 08/14/14 79 FR 47605
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End.... 10/14/14
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Amanda Edens, Director, Directorate of Technical
Support and Emergency Management, Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP
Building, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2300, Fax:
202 693-1644, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1218-AC49
BILLING CODE 4510-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Introduction: Department Overview and Summary of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of nine 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, public transportation, 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. In addition, 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 DOT
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 goals in the
Department's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018:
Safety: Improve public health and safety by ``reducing
transportation-related fatalities, injuries, and crashes.''
[[Page 77825]]
State of Good Repair: Ensure the U.S. ``proactively
maintains 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.''
Quality of Life: Foster quality of life in communities by
``integrating transportation policies, plans, with coordinated housing
and economic development policies to increase transportation choices
and access to transportation services for all.''
Environmental Sustainability: Advance ``environmental
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 law
Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most
Wanted List''
The costs and benefits of the regulations
The advantages of nonregulatory 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 19 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
its efforts to implement safety management systems.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
continues its work to strengthen the requirements for Electronic
Logging Devices and revise motor carrier safety fitness determination
procedures.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
will continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
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 of the Department's retrospective reviews and its 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.
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; creation of an
electronic rulemaking tracking and coordination system; the use of
direct final rulemaking; the use of regulatory negotiation; a
continually expanding and improved Internet page that provides
important regulatory information, including ``effects'' reports and
status reports (http://www.dot.gov/regulations); and the continued
exploration and 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's Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Department actively engaged in a
special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine whether
they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition to
those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. As part of this effort, we also reviewed our processes
for determining what rules to review and ensuring that the rules are
effectively reviewed. As a result of the review, we identified many
rules for expedited review and changes to our retrospective review
process. Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory
Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. If a retrospective review action has been completed it will no
longer appear on the list below. However, more information can be found
about these completed rulemakings on the Unified Agenda publications at
Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that
[[Page 77826]]
agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The
final agency retrospective review plan can be found at http://www.dot.gov/regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retrospective
review of
existing Significantly reduces
RIN regulations costs on small businesses
Rulemaking
title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2105-AE29............... Transportation TBD.
Services for
Individuals
with
Disabilities:
Over-the-Road
Buses (RRR).
2. 2120-AJ94............... Enhanced Flight
Vision System
(EFVS) (RRR).
3. 2120-AK24............... Fuel Tank and
System
Lightning
Protection
(RRR).
4. 2120-AK28............... Aviation
Training
Devices; Pilot
Certification,
Training, and
Pilot Schools;
Other
Provisions
(RRR).
5. 2120-AK32............... Acceptance
Criteria for
Portable
Oxygen
Concentrators
Used Onboard
Aircraft (RRR).
6. 2120-AK34............... Flammability
Requirements
for Transport
Category
Airplanes
(RRR).
7. 2120-AK44............... Reciprocal
Waivers of
Claims for Non-
Party Customer
Beneficiaries,
Signature of
Waivers of
Claims by
Commercial
Space
Transportation
Customers. And
Waiver of
Claims and
Assumption of
Responsibility
for Permitted
Activities
with No
Customer (RRR).
8. 2125-AF62............... Acquisition of N.
Right-of-Way
(RRR) (MAP-21).
9. 2125-AF65............... Buy America TBD.
(RRR).
10. 2126-AB46.............. Inspection,
Repair, and
Maintenance;
Driver-Vehicle
Inspection
Report (RRR).
11. 2126-AB47.............. Electronic
Signatures and
Documents (E-
Signatures)
(RRR).
12. 2126-AB49.............. Elimination of
Redundant
Maintenance
Rule (RRR).
13. 2127-AK98.............. Pedestrian
Safety Global
Technical
Regulation
(RRR).
14. 2127-AL03.............. Part 571 FMVSS
No. 205,
Glazing
Materials, GTR
(RRR).
15. 2127-AL05.............. Amend FMVSS No. Y.
210 to
Incorporate
the Use of a
New Force
Application
Device (RRR).
16. 2127-AL17.............. 49 CFR Part
595, Subpart
C, Make
Inoperative
Exemptions,
Vehicle
Modifications
to Accommodate
People With
Disabilities,
from FMVSS No.
226 (RRR).
17. 2127-AL20.............. Upgrade of
LATCH
Usability
Requirements
(MAP-21) (RRR).
18. 2127-AL24.............. Rapid Tire
Deflation Test
in FMVSS No.
110 (RRR).
19. 2127-AL41.............. FMVSS No.
571.108
License Plate
Mounting Angle
(RRR).
20. 2127-AL58.............. Upgrade of Rear
Impact Guard
Requirements
for Trailers
and
Semitrailers
(RRR).
21. 2130-AC40.............. Qualification
and
Certification
of Locomotive
Engineers;
Miscellaneous
Revisions
(RRR).
22. 2130-AC41.............. Hours of
Service
Recordkeeping;
Electronic
Recordkeeping
Amendments
(RRR).
23. 2130-AC43.............. Safety Glazing
Standards;
Miscellaneous
Revisions
(RRR).
24. 2137-AE72.............. Pipeline Y.
Safety: Gas
Transmission
(RRR).
25. 2137-AE80.............. Hazardous Y.
Materials:
Miscellaneous
Pressure
Vessel
Requirements
(DOT Spec
Cylinders)
(RRR).
26. 2137-AE81.............. Hazardous Y.
Materials:
Reverse
Logistics
(RRR).
27. 2137-AE86.............. Hazardous
Materials:
Requirements
for the Safe
Transportation
of Bulk
Explosives
(RRR).
28. 2137-AE94.............. Pipeline Y.
Safety:
Operator
Qualification,
Cost Recovery,
Accident and
Incident
Notification,
and Other
Changes (RRR).
29. 2137-AF00.............. Hazardous Y.
Materials:
Adoption of
Special
Permits (MAP-
21) (RRR).
30. 2137-AF04.............. Hazardous
Materials:
Miscellaneous
Amendments
(RRR).
31. 2137-AF10.............. Hazardous
Materials:
Revision of
the
Requirements
for Carriage
by Aircraft
(RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Regulatory Cooperation
Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation) stresses that ``[i]n an increasingly global economy,
international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and
prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of
promoting the goals of'' Executive Order 13563 to ``protect public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOT has long
recognized the value of international regulatory cooperation and has
engaged in a variety of activities with both foreign governments and
international bodies. These activities have ranged from cooperation in
the development of particular standards to discussions of necessary
steps for rulemakings in general, such as risk assessments and cost-
benefit analyses of possible standards. Since the issuance of Executive
Order 13609, we have increased our efforts in this area. For example,
many of DOT's Operating Administrations are active in groundbreaking
government-wide Regulatory Cooperation Councils (RCC) with Canada,
Mexico, and the European Union. These RCC working groups are setting a
precedent in developing and testing approaches to international
coordination of rulemaking to reduce barriers to international trade.
We also have been exploring innovative approaches to ease the
development process.
Examples of the many cooperative efforts we are engaged in include
the following:
The FAA maintains ongoing efforts with foreign civil aviation
authorities, including in particular the European Aviation Safety
Agency and Transport Canada, to harmonize standards and practices where
doing so will improve the safety of aviation and aviation-related
activities. The FAA also plays an active role in the standard-setting
work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
particularly on the Air Navigation Commission and the Legal Committee.
In doing so, the FAA works with other Nations to shape the standards
and recommended practices adopted by ICAO. The FAA's rulemaking actions
related to safety management systems are examples of the FAA's
harmonization efforts.
NHTSA is actively engaged in international regulatory cooperative
efforts on both a multilateral and a bilateral basis, exchanging
information on best practices and otherwise seeking to leverage its
resources for addressing vehicle issues in the U.S. As noted in
Executive Order 13609: ``(i)n meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective
[[Page 77827]]
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation'' and ``can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.''
As the representative, for vehicle safety matters, of the United
States, one of 33 contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement on the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, NHTSA is an active participant in
the World Forum for Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the UN. Under that
umbrella, NHTSA is currently working on the development of harmonized
regulations for the safety of electric vehicles; hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicles; advanced head restraints; pole side impact test procedures;
pedestrian protection; the safety risks associated with quieter
vehicles, such as electric and hybrid electric vehicles; and
advancements in tires.
In recognition of the large cross-border market in motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is working bilaterally with
Transport Canada under the Motor Vehicles Working Group of the U.S.-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) to facilitate
implementation of the initial RCC Joint Action Plan. Under this Plan,
NHTSA and Transport Canada are working on the development of
international standards on quieter vehicles, electric vehicle safety,
and hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
Building on the initial Joint Action Plan, the U.S. and Canada
issued a Joint Forward Plan on August 29, 2014. The Forward Plan
provided that regulators would develop Regulatory Partnership
Statements (RPSs) outlining the framework for how cooperative
activities will be managed between agencies. In that same period,
regulators will also develop and complete detailed work plans to begin
to address the commitments in the Forward Plan. To facilitate future
cooperation, the RCC will work over the next year on cross-cutting
issues in areas such as: ``sharing information with foreign
governments, joint funding of new initiatives and our respective
rulemaking processes.''
To broaden and deepen its cooperative efforts with the European
Union, NHTSA is participating in ongoing negotiations regarding the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which is ``aimed at
providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and
investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety,
and environmental protection.'' NHTSA is seeking to build on existing
levels of safety and lay the groundwork for future cooperation in
addressing emerging safety issues and technologies.
PHMSA's hazardous material group works with ICAO, the UN
Subcommittee of Experts on Dangerous Goods, and the International
Maritime Organization. Through participation in these international
bodies, PHMSA is able to advocate on behalf of U.S. safety and
commercial interests to guide the development of international
standards with which U.S. businesses have to comply when shipping in
international commerce. PHMSA additionally participates in the RCC with
Canada and has a Memorandum of Cooperation in place to ensure that
cross-border shipments are not hampered by conflicting regulations. The
pipeline group at PHMSA incorporates many standards by reference into
the Pipeline Safety Regulations, and the development of these standards
benefit from the participation of experts from around the world.
In the areas of airline consumer protection and civil rights
regulation, OST is particularly conscientious in seeking international
regulatory cooperation. For example, the Department participates in the
standard-setting activities of ICAO and meets and works with other
governments and international airline associations on the
implementation of U.S. and foreign aviation rules.
For a number of years the Department has also provided information
on which of its rulemaking actions have international effects. This
information, updated monthly, is available at the Department's
regulatory information Web site, http://www.dot.gov/regulations, under
the heading ``Reports on Rulemakings and Enforcement.'' (The reports
can be found under headings for ``EU,'' ``NAFTA'' (Canada and Mexico)
and ``Foreign.'') A list of our significant rulemakings that are
expected to have international effects follows; the identifying RIN
provided below can be used to find summary and other information about
the rulemakings in the Department's Regulatory Agenda published along
with this Plan:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT significant
rulemakings with
RIN international
impacts Rulemaking
title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD91......................................... Accessibility of
Airports.
2105-AE06......................................... E-Cigarette.
2120-AJ38......................................... Airport Safety
Management System.
2120-AJ60......................................... Small Unmanned
Aircraft.
2120-AJ69......................................... Prohibition Against
Certain Flights
Within the
Territory and
Airspace of
Afghanistan.
2120-AJ89......................................... Slot Management and
Transparency.
2120-AK09......................................... Drug & Alcohol
Testing for Repair
Stations.
2120-AK65......................................... Revision of
Airworthiness
Standards for
Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category
Airplanes.
2126-AA34......................................... Mexico-Domiciled
Motor Carriers.
2126-AA35......................................... Safety Monitoring
System and
Compliance
Initiative for
Mexico-Domiciled
Motor Carriers
Operating in the
United States.
2124-AA70......................................... Limitations on the
Issuance of
Commercial Driver
Licenses with a
Hazardous Materials
Endorsement.
2126-AB56......................................... MAP-21 Enhancements
and Other Updates
to the Unified
Registration
System.
2127-AK76......................................... Tire Fuel Efficiency
Part 2.
2127-AK93......................................... Quieter Vehicles
Sound Alert.
2133-AB74......................................... Cargo Preference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory
cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to
significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and
subsequent Agendas and Plans.
The Department's Regulatory Process
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example,
the Department
[[Page 77828]]
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 at http://www.dot.gov/regulations. 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 continues 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), Executive Order 13563, 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 such projects as those
concerning aviation economic rules, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with
regulatory requirements and process for 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; retrospective reviews of
rules; 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 2016, OST will focus its efforts on voice
communications on passengers[acute] mobile wireless devices on
scheduled flights within, to and from the United States (2105-AE30).
OST will also continue its efforts on the following rulemaking
initiatives:
Airline Passenger Protections III (2105-AE11)
In-Flight Medical Oxygen and other ACAA issues (2105-AE12)
In-Flight Entertainment (2105-AE32)
Reporting of Statistics for Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs (2105-
AE41)
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
quality of life for the people and communities who use transportation
systems subject to the Department's policies. It will also continue to
oversee the Department's rulemaking actions to implement the ``Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21).
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. Destination 2025, an FAA initiative that captures the
agency's vision of transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025,
has proven to be an effective tool for pushing the agency to think
about longer-term aspirations; FAA has established a vision that
defines the agency's priorities for the next five years. The changing
technological and industry environment compels us to transform the
agency. And the challenging fiscal environment we face only increases
the need to prioritize our goals.
We have identified four major strategic initiatives where we will
focus our efforts: (1) Risk-based Decision Making--Build on safety
management principles to proactively address emerging safety risk by
using consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-
level, risk-based decisions; (2) NAS Initiative--Lay the foundation for
the National Airspace System of the future by achieving prioritized
NextGen benefits, enabling the safe and efficient integration of new
user entrants including Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Commercial
Space flights, and deliver more efficient, streamlined air traffic
management services; (3) Global Leadership--Improve safety, air traffic
efficiency, and environmental sustainability across the globe through
an integrated, data-driven approach that shapes global standards,
enhances collaboration and harmonization, and better targets FAA
resources and efforts; and (4) Workforce of the Future--Prepare FAA's
human capital for the future, by identifying, recruiting, and training
a workforce with the leadership, technical, and functional skills to
ensure the U.S. has the world's safest and most productive aviation
sector.
FAA activities that may lead to rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2016
include continuing to:
Promote and expand safety information-sharing efforts,
such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety programs that
prioritize and address risks before they lead to accidents.
Specifically, FAA will continue implementing Commercial Aviation Safety
Team projects related to controlled flight into terrain, loss of
control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions,
weather, pilot decision making, and cabin safety. Some of these
projects may result in rulemaking and guidance materials.
Respond to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
(the Act), which directed the FAA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding
to issue guidelines and regulations relating to ADS-B In technology and
recommendations from an Aviation Rulemaking Committee on ADS-B-In
capabilities in consideration of the FAA's evolving thinking on how to
provide an integrated suite of communication, navigation, and
surveillance (CNS) capabilities to achieve full NextGen performance.
Respond to the Act, which also recommended we complete the
rulemaking for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and consider how to
fully integrate UAS operations in the NAS, which will require future
rulemaking.
Respond to the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 5900), which requires the
FAA to develop and implement Safety Management Systems (SMS) where
these systems will
[[Page 77829]]
improve safety of aviation and aviation-related activities. An SMS
proactively identifies potential hazards in the operating environment,
analyzes the risks of those hazards, and encourages mitigation prior to
an accident or incident. In its most general form, an SMS is a set of
decision-making tools that can be used to plan, organize, direct, and
control activities in a manner that enhances safety.
Respond to the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013
(H.R. 1848), which requires the FAA adopt the recommendations from part
23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) for improving safety and reducing certification costs for general
aviation. The ARC recommendations include a broad range of policy and
regulatory changes that it believes could significantly improve the
safety of general aviation aircraft while simultaneously reducing
certification and modification costs for these aircraft. Among the
ARC's recommendations is a suggestion that compliance with part 23
requirements be performance-based, focusing on the complexity and
performance of an aircraft instead of the current regulations based on
weight and type of propulsion. In announcing the ARC's recommendations,
the Secretary of Transportation said ``Streamlining the design and
certification process could provide a cost-efficient way to build
simple airplanes that still incorporate the latest in safety
initiatives. These changes have the potential to save money and
maintain our safety standing--a win-win situation for manufacturers,
pilots and the general aviation community as a whole.'' Further, these
changes are consistent with directions to agencies in [Executive Order
13610 ``Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,'' we continue to
find ways to make our regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome; provide quantifiable monetary savings or quantifiable
reductions in paperwork burdens, and modify and streamline regulations
in light of changed circumstances.]
Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation
regulations with those of other countries, without compromising
rigorous safety standards, or our requirements to develop cost benefit
analysis. 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 internal analysis, public comment, and recommendations of
Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of cooperative
rulemaking between the U.S. and other countries.
FAA top regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 include:
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(2120-AJ60) (Pub. L. 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012))
Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes (2120-AK65)
Airport Safety Management System (2120-AJ38)
Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional
Development (2120-AJ87)
The Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
rulemaking would:
Adopt specific rules for the operation of small unmanned
aircraft systems in the national airspace system; and
Address the classification of small unmanned aircraft,
certification of their pilots and visual observers, registration,
approval of operations, and operational limits.
The Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes rulemaking would:
Reorganize part 23 into performance-based requirements by
removing the detailed design requirements from part 23;
Promote the adoption of the newly created performance-
based airworthiness design standard as an internationally accepted
standard by the majority of other civil aviation authorities;
Re-align the part 23 requirements to promote the
development of entry-level airplanes similar to those certified under
Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA);
Enhance the FAA's ability to address new technology;
Increase the general aviation (GA) level of safety
provided by new and modified airplanes;
Amend the stall, stall warning, and spin requirements to
reduce fatal accidents and increase crashworthiness by allowing new
methods for occupant protection; and
Address icing conditions that are currently not included
in part 23 regulations.
The Airport Safety Management System rulemaking would:
Require certain airport certificate holders to develop,
implement, maintain, and adhere to a safety management system (SMS) for
its aviation related activities.
The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional
Development rulemaking would:
Ensure air carriers establish or modify training programs
to address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight
crewmembers in part 121 operations.
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 most cost-effective 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.
MAP-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for
highways, highway safety, and transit for the two-year period from
2012-2014. The FHWA has analyzed MAP-21 to identify Congressionally
directed rulemakings. These rulemakings will be the FHWA's top
regulatory priorities for the coming year.
Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA
regulations to ensure that they are consistent with MAP-21 and will
update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently
enacted legislation.
During Fiscal Year 2016, FHWA will continue its focus on improving
the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating
national performance management measures and standards to be used by
the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in
section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:
[[Page 77830]]
National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Safety)
(RIN: 2125-AF49)
National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Bridges
and Pavement) (RIN: 2125-AF53)
National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Congestion
Reduction, CMAQ, Freight, and Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate
NHS) (RIN: 2125-AF54).
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 safety bar for
entry, maintaining high standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In
addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations
mandated by Congress, through legislation such as MAP-21. FMCSA
regulations establish standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers,
commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor
carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2016 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) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11), (2) Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66), and (3)
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18).
Together, these priority rules could improve substantially
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by
increasing FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor
carriers and commercial drivers.
In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and
issue a final rule on Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11) to establish a new safety fitness determination standard that
will enable the Agency to prohibit ``unfit'' carriers from operating on
the Nation's highways and contribute to the Agency's overall goal of
decreasing CMV-related fatalities and injuries.
In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and
issue a final rule on Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66). This
rule would establish training requirements for individuals before they
can obtain their CDL or certain endorsements. It will define curricula
for training providers and establish requirements and procedures for
the schools. The proposed rule is based on consensus recommendations
from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee
(ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee that held a series of 6
meetings between February and May 2015.
Also in FY 2016, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18). The rule would establish a clearinghouse requiring employers and
service agents to report information about current and prospective
employees' drug and alcohol test results. It would require employers
and certain service agents to search the Clearinghouse for current and
prospective employees' positive drug and alcohol test results as a
condition of permitting those employees to perform safety-sensitive
functions. This would provide FMCSA and employers the necessary tools
to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV based on
DOT drug and alcohol program violations and ensure that such drivers
receive the required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-
sensitive functions.
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.
In Fiscal Year 2016, NHTSA, in conjunction with the Environmental
Protection Agency, will publish a final rule to address phase two of
fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks for model years beyond 2018. This final rule
will be responsive to requirements of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 as well as the President's Climate Action Plan.
NHTSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications in Fiscal Year 2016. V2V
communications are currently perceived to become a foundational aspect
of vehicle automation. In response to requirements in MAP-21, NHTSA
plans to issue a NPRM that would propose requiring automobile
manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front
passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles.
The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and
thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would
otherwise have been unbelted. The Agency will also continue work toward
a NPRM that would consider requirements for rear impact guards and
other safety strategies on single unit trucks to mitigate under-ride
crashes into the rear of single unit trucks.
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, driver distraction, 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 reflects a number of pending
proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), and
[[Page 77831]]
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as
well as actions under its general safety rulemaking authority and
actions supporting a high-performing passenger rail network and to
address the safe and effective movement of energy products,
particularly crude oil. RSIA08 alone has required 21 rulemaking
actions, 17 of which have been completed. FRA continues to prioritize
its rulemakings according to the greatest effect on safety while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation, as well as expressed congressional interest, while working to
complete as many mandated rulemakings as quickly as possible.
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is
working to complete its on-going development of requirements related to
the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction and system
safety programs. FRA is developing proposed rulemaking documents based
on the recommendations of an RSAC working group containing the fatigue
management provisions related to both proceedings. FRA is also in the
process of developing a significant regulatory action that would
propose requirements related to the crew size of passenger and freight
trains, including trains transporting crude oil and ethanol by rail.
FRA continues its work to produce a rulemaking containing RSAC-
supported actions that advance high-performing passenger rail to
proposed standards for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger
equipment. Finally, FRA is developing proposed rules regarding track
inspections aimed at improving rail integrity to allow continuous rail
integrity testing and to address the use of inward and outward facing
locomotive-mounted cameras and other recording devices.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FTA helps communities support public transportation by making
grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit
facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-
related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements 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:
Ensure the safety of public transportation systems.
Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through
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 often
requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. FTA is
currently implementing many of its public transportation programs
authorized under MAP-21 through the regulatory process. To that end,
FTA's regulatory priorities include implementing the newly authorized
Public Transportation Safety Program (49 U.S.C. 5329), such as the
Public Transportation Safety Plan and updating the State Safety
Oversight rule, as well as, implementing requirements for Transit Asset
Management Systems (49 U.S.C. 5326). The joint FTA/FHWA planning rule
which will be merged with FTA/FHWA's Additional Authorities for
Planning and Environmental Linkages rule and FTA's Bus Testing rule
round out its regulatory priorities.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and
programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system
to meet the economic, environmental, 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 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 following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force,
Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States
Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support,
Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development.
Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program
through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to
America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to
compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at
home.
MARAD's primary regulatory activities in Fiscal Year 2016 will be
to continue the update of existing regulations as part of the
Department's Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose 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. The
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
included a number of rulemaking studies and mandates and additional
enforcement authorities that continue to impact PHMSA's regulatory
activities in Fiscal Year 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7FD46010F0497123865B976479CFF3952E990200/filename/Pipeline%20Reauthorization%20Bill%202011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP-21 reauthorized the hazardous materials safety program and
required several regulatory actions by PHMSA. PHMSA has been very
effective in implementing the MAP-21 provisions. MAP-21 established
over thirty distinct provisions applicable to PHMSA's Hazardous
Materials Safety Program. For example, MAP-21 required PHMSA to codify
its procedures for issuing special permits and the criteria it uses to
evaluate special permit and approval applications. MAP-21 requires
PHMSA to conduct a review of existing special permits and publish a
rulemaking every two years to codify special permits that have been in
continuous effect for a ten-year period. MAP-21 also requires PHMSA to
evaluate the feasibility of paperless hazard communication as an
effective means for transmitting shipment information between shippers,
carriers, responders, and enforcement officials.
PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes,
including
[[Page 77832]]
pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness,
and job creation. We will concentrate on the prevention of high-risk
incidents identified through the findings of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and PHMSA's evaluation of
transportation incident data. 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 on the streamlining of its regulatory
system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing
rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to
account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be
streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to evaluate, analyze,
and be responsive to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review
regulations, letters of interpretation, petitions for rulemaking,
special permits, enforcement actions, approvals, and international
standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and
barriers to regulatory compliance.
PHMSA aims to reduce the risks related to the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail. Preventing tank car incidents and
minimizing the consequences when an incident does occur are not only
DOT priorities, but are also shared by our Federal and international
partners, the NTSB, industry, and the general public. Expansion in
United States energy production has led to significant challenges in
the transportation system. Expansion in oil production has led to
increasing volumes of energy products transported to refineries. With a
growing domestic supply, rail transportation, in particular, has
emerged as an alternative to transportation by pipeline or vessel. The
growing reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable
liquids raises risks that have been highlighted by the recent instances
of trains carrying crude oil that have derailed. PHMSA and FRA issued a
final rule on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26643), designed to lessen the
frequency and consequences of train accidents involving flammable
liquids. In addition, PHMSA and FRA issued an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 45079), seeking comment on
potential revisions to its regulations that would expand the
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for
crude oil trains. PHMSA will continue to take regulatory actions to
enhance the safe transportation of energy products.
On October 13, 2015 [80 FR 61609], PHMSA issued an NPRM proposing
changes to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines.
Specifically, the agency proposed regulatory changes relative to High
Consequence Areas (HCAs) for integrity management (IM) protections,
repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid gathering
lines. The agency also addressed public safety and environmental
aspects of any new requirements, as well as the cost implications and
regulatory burden.
PHMSA also will be revisiting the requirements in the Pipeline
Safety Regulations addressing integrity management principles for Gas
Transmission pipelines. In particular, PHMSA is planning to propose
requirements to address repair criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas,
assessment methods, validating and integrating pipeline data, risk
assessments, knowledge gained through the IM program, corrosion
control, management of change, gathering lines, and safety features on
launchers and receivers.
Quantifiable Costs and Benefits of Rulemakings on the 2015 to 2016 DOT Regulatory Plan
[This chart does not account for benefits and costs that could not be monetized, which may be substantial]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantifiable
Quantifiable costs benefits
Agency/RIN No. Title Stage discounted 2013 $ discounted 2013 $
(millions) (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AE30.................. Use of Mobile NPRM 03/16......... TBD................ TBD.
Wireless Devices
for Voice Calls on
Aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ38.................. Airport Safety SNPRM 11/15........ $157.5............. $225.9.
Management System.
2120-AJ60.................. Small Unmanned FR 4/16............ $5.7............... TBD.
Aircraft Systems.
2120-AJ87.................. Pilot Professional NPRM 12/15......... $46.8.............. $46.3.
Development.
2120-AK65.................. Revision of NPRM 01/16......... $3.9............... $11.6.
Airworthiness
Standards for
Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category
Airplanes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2125-AF49.................. Performance FR 11/15........... $5.4............... Breakeven Analysis.
Management 1. Note: These are
preliminary agency
estimates only.
They have not been
reviewed by others
outside of DOT.
The estimates
could change after
interagency
review..
2125-AF53.................. Performance NPRM (Analyzing $21.2.............. Breakeven Analysis.
Management 2. Comments 12/15) FR Note: These are
TBD. preliminary agency
estimates only.
They have not been
reviewed by others
outside of DOT.
The estimates
could change after
interagency
review..
[[Page 77833]]
2125-AF54.................. Performance NPRM 12/15......... TBD................ Breakeven Analysis.
Management 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AB11.................. Carrier Safety NPRM 11/15......... $7................. $241.
Fitness
Determination.
2126-AB18.................. Commercial Driver's FR 03/16........... $174............... $230.
License Drug and
Alcohol
Clearinghouse.
2126-AB66.................. Entry Level Driver NPRM 11/15......... TBD................ TBD.
Training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AL37.................. Rear Seat Belt NPRM 04/16......... $164.3-$324.6...... 310-465.5.
Reminder System. Note: These are Note: These are
preliminary agency preliminary agency
estimates only. estimates only.
They have not been They have not been
reviewed by others reviewed by others
outside of DOT. outside of DOT.
The estimates The estimates
could change after could change after
interagency review. interagency
review.
2127-AL52.................. Fuel Efficiency NPRM (Analyzing $30,500-$31,100.... $261,000-$276,000.
Standards for Comments 11/15) FR
Medium- and Heavy- TBD.
Duty Vehicles and
Work Trucks: Phase
2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2132-AB07.................. Transit Asset NPRM (Analyzing $18.9 million Breakeven Analysis.
Management. Comments 11/15). (Annualized).
2132-AB23.................. Public NPRM 12/15......... $92 million Breakeven Analysis.
Transportation (Annualized).
Agency Safety Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE66.................. Pipeline Safety: NPRM 11/15......... TBD................ TBD.
Safety of On-Shore
Liquid Hazardous
Pipelines.
2137-AE72.................. Pipeline Safety: Gas NPRM 12/15......... TBD................ TBD.
Transmission (RRR).
2137-AF08.................. Hazardous Materials: NPRM 01/16......... TBD................ TBD.
Oil Spill Response
Plans and
Information Sharing
for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods
will be the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
Costs and benefits are generally discounted at a 7 percent discount rate over the period analyzed.
The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of
$9.4 million. That economic value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted
above, we have not included the non-quantifiable benefits.
DOT--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST)
Proposed Rule Stage
86. +Use of Mobile Wireless Devices for Voice Calls on Aircraft
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712, 49 U.S.C. 41702
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is
seeking comment on whether it should adopt a rule to restrict voice
communications on passengers' mobile wireless devices on scheduled
flights within, to and from the United States. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking that if adopted would, among other things, create a pathway
for airlines to permit the use of cellphones or other mobile wireless
devices to make or receive calls on board aircraft. DOT supports the
FCC's proposal to revise its rules in light of the technology available
and to expand access to mobile wireless data services on board
aircraft; however, under the Department's aviation consumer protection
authority and because of concerns raised, we are seeking comment on
whether to ban voice calls on aircraft.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking proposes to regulate the
practice of permitting airline passengers to use mobile wireless
devices to make voice calls onboard aircraft. Currently, the FCC bans
the use of certain cellular frequencies on aircraft; this rule
effectively prohibits the use of cellular telephone frequencies to make
voice calls while in flight. In 2013, however, the FCC issued an NPRM
which proposed lifting the ban on cellular frequencies while in flight,
so long as the aircraft is equipped with an Airborne Access System.
Moreover,
[[Page 77834]]
airlines are increasingly installing Wi-Fi technology onboard aircraft.
These systems operate outside the scope of the FCC's ban and have the
capacity to transmit voice calls. In light of these developments, the
Department anticipates an environment in which voice calls on aircraft
would be not only permitted, but increasingly frequent. In February
2014, the Department issued an ANPRM seeking comment on whether to
regulate the use of voice calls onboard aircraft. Comments received by
the public (along with pilots' organizations and flight attendants'
organizations) overwhelmingly favored a ban.
Summary of Legal Basis: The primary legal basis for this rulemaking
is 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in
air transportation or the sale of air transportation. The Department
submits that permitting passengers to make voice calls within the
confines of an aircraft may be ``unfair'' in that it subjects other
passengers to significant unavoidable harm without countervailing
benefits. The Department's consumer protection authority found in
section 41712 also supports a proposed rule which would require sellers
of air transportation to notify passengers when a given flight does
permit the use of voice calls. Another legal basis for the proposed
rule is 49 U.S.C. 41702, which provides that air carriers shall provide
``safe and adequate'' domestic air transportation. The Department
relied on section 41702 when it determined that the discomfort to
passengers from smoking on aircraft was significant enough to justify
regulating smoking to ensure adequate service in domestic air
transportation. The Department submits that voice calls on aircraft
would create a similar type of passenger hardship.
Alternatives: The Department's NPRM, as currently drafted, would
propose three (co-equal) alternative rules: (1) Prohibiting airlines
from permitting passengers to use mobile devices to make voice calls on
domestic flights and domestic segments of international flights; (2)
prohibiting airlines from permitting passengers to use mobile devices
to make voice calls on both domestic flights and international flights;
and (3) not banning voice calls, but requiring sellers of air
transportation to disclose in advance when a particular flight is one
on which voice calls are permitted. The alternative to these three
proposals is to take no action; this alternative would require no
advance notice and would passengers to make voice calls to the extent
that the FCC's rule, technological advances, and airlines' own policies
would allow.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: n/a.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/24/14 79 FR 10049
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 03/26/14
NPRM................................ 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Blane A. Workie, Principal Deputy Assistant General
Counsel, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-9342, TDD
Phone: 202 755-7687, Fax: 202 366-7152, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2105-AE30
DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
87. +Airport Safety Management System
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44706; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C.
40113; 49 U.S.C. 44701 to 44706; 49 U.S.C. 44709; 49 U.S.C. 44719
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 139.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 5, 2012, final rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking would require certain airport certificate
holders to develop, implement, maintain, and adhere to a safety
management system (SMS) for its aviation related activities. An SMS is
a formalized approach to managing safety by developing an organization-
wide safety policy, developing formal methods of identifying hazards,
analyzing and mitigating risk, developing methods for ensuring
continuous safety improvement, and creating organization-wide safety
promotion strategies.
Statement of Need: In the NPRM published on October 7, 2010, the
FAA proposed to require all part 139 certificate holders to develop and
implement an SMS to improve the safety of their aviation-related
activities. The FAA received 65 comment documents from a variety of
commenters. Because of the complexity of the issues and concerns raised
by the commenters, the FAA began to reevaluate whether deployment of
SMS at all certificated airports was the most effective approach. The
FAA continues to believe that an SMS can address potential safety gaps
that are not completely eliminated through effective FAA regulations
and technical operating standards.
Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States
Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. The FAA is proposing this
rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A,
subpart III, section 44706, ``Airport operating certificates.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with issuing airport operating
certificates (AOC) that contain terms that the Administrator finds
necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. This proposed rule is
within the scope of that authority because it requires certain
certificated airports to develop and maintain an SMS. The development
and implementation of an SMS ensures safety in air transportation by
assisting these airports in proactively identifying and mitigating
safety hazards.
Alternatives: The FAA is exploring various alternatives to
determine how to apply an SMS requirement to a group of airports that
gains the most benefit in a cost-effective manner.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits are estimated at
$370,788,457 ($225,850,869 present value) and total costs are estimated
at $238,865,692 ($157,496,312 present value), with benefits exceeding
costs. These are preliminary estimates subject to change based on
further review and analysis.
Risks: An SMS is a formalized approach to managing safety by
developing an organization-wide safety policy, developing formal
methods of identifying hazards, analyzing and mitigating risk,
developing methods for ensuring continuous safety improvement, and
creating organization-wide safety promotion strategies. An SMS provides
an organization's management with a set of decisionmaking tools that
can be used to plan, organize, direct, and control its business
activities in a manner that enhances safety and ensures compliance with
regulatory standards. Adherence to standard operating procedures,
proactive identification and mitigation of hazards and risks, and
effective
[[Page 77835]]
communications are crucial to continued operational safety. The FAA
envisions an SMS would provide an airport with an added layer of safety
to help reduce the number of near-misses, incidents, and accidents. An
SMS also would ensure that all levels of airport management understand
safety implications of airfield operations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/07/10 75 FR 62008
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/10/10 75 FR 76928
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/05/11 .......................
End of Extended Comment Period...... 03/07/11 .......................
Second Extension of Comment Period.. 03/07/11 76 FR 12300
End of Second Extended Comment 07/05/11 .......................
Period.
Supplemental NPRM................... 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Additional Information: The estimated costs of this rule do not
include the costs of mitigations that operators could incur as a result
of conducting the risk analysis proposed in this rule. Given the range
of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to provide a
quantitative estimate of both the costs and benefits of such
mitigations. However, we anticipate that operators will only implement
mitigations where benefits exceeds costs. As such, the FAA believes
that the costs of this rule would be justified by the anticipated
benefits of the rule, if adopted as proposed.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Keri Lyons, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591, Phone: 202 267-8972, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ15
RIN: 2120-AJ38
DOT--FAA
88. +Pilot Professional Development
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); Pub. L. 111-216, sec 206
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 20, 2015, NPRM.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the regulations for air
carrier training programs under part 121. The action is necessary to
ensure that air carriers establish or modify training programs to
address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight
crewmembers in part 121 operations. This rulemaking is required by the
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.
Statement of Need: On August 1, 2010, the President signed the
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216). Section 206 of Public Law 111-216 directed the
FAA to convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to develop
procedures for each part 121 air carrier pertaining to mentoring,
professional development, and leadership and command training for
pilots serving in part 121 operations and to issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) based on the ARC recommendations. This NPRM is
necessary to satisfy a requirement of section 206 of Public Law 111-
216.
Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f)
and 44701(a) and the specific authority found in section 206 of Public
Law 111-216, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), which directed the FAA to
convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) and conduct a rulemaking
proceeding based on this ARC's recommendations pertaining to mentoring,
professional development, and leadership and command training for
pilots serving in part 121 operations. Section 206 further required
that the FAA include in leadership and command training, instruction on
compliance with flightcrew member duties under 14 CFR 121.542.
Alternatives: The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and
Professional Development ARC presented recommendations to the FAA in
its report dated November 2, 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the timeframe 2015 to 2024
(millions of 2013 Dollars), the total cost saving benefits is $72.017
($46.263 present value) and the total compliance costs is $67.632
($46.774 present value).
Risks: As recognized by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), the overall safety and reliability of the National Airspace
System demonstrates that most pilots conduct operations with a high
degree of professionalism. Nevertheless, a problem still exists in the
aviation industry with some pilots acting unprofessionally and not
adhering to standard operating procedures, including sterile cockpit.
The NTSB has continued to cite inadequate leadership in the flight
deck, pilots' unprofessional behavior, and pilots' failure to comply
with the sterile cockpit rule as factors in multiple accidents and
incidents including Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 and Colgan Air, Inc.
flight 3407. The FAA intends for this proposal to mitigate
unprofessional pilot behavior which would reduce pilot errors that can
lead to a catastrophic event.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sheri Pippin, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261,
Phone: 310 725-7342, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ00
RIN: 2120-AJ87
DOT--FAA
89. +Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C.
44701; 49 U.S.C. 44702; 49 U.S.C. 44704
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 23.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 15, 2015, NPRM (Pub. L.
113-53).
Abstract: This rulemaking would revise title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 23 as a set of performance based regulations
for the design and certification of small transport category aircraft.
This
[[Page 77836]]
rulemaking would: (1) Reorganize part 23 into performance-based
requirements by removing the detailed design requirements from part 23.
The detailed design provisions that would assist applicants in
complying with the new performance-based requirements would be
identified in means of compliance (MOC) documents to support this
effort; (2) promote the adoption of the newly created performance-based
airworthiness design standard as an internationally accepted standard
by the majority of other civil aviation authorities; (3) re-align the
part 23 requirements to promote the development of entry-level
airplanes similar to those certified under Certification Specification
for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA); (4) enhance the FAA's ability to
address new technology; (5) increase the general aviation (GA) level of
safety provided by new and modified airplanes; (6) amend the stall,
stall warning, and spin requirements to reduce fatal accidents and
increase crashworthiness by allowing new methods for occupant
protection; (7) address icing conditions that are currently not
included in part 23 regulations.
Statement of Need: The FAA's strategic vision in line with
Destination 2025, communicates FAA goals to increase safety throughout
general aviation by enabling and facilitating innovation and
development of safety enhancing products. This project intends to
provide an appropriate and globally competitive regulatory structure
that allows small transport category airplanes to achieve FAA safety
goals through innovation and compliance with performance-based safety
standards. One focus area is Loss of Control (LOC) accidents, which
continues to be the largest source of fatal GA accidents. To address
LOC accidents, the Small Airplane Directorate is focused on
establishing standards based on a safety continuum that balances the
level of certitude, appropriate level of safety, and acceptable risk
for each segment of GA. This risk-based approach to certification has
already served the FAA and public well, with the application of section
23.1309 to avionics equipment in part 23 airplanes, leading to the
successful introduction of glass cockpits in small GA airplanes. To
improve the GA fleet's safety level over that of today's aging fleet,
the FAA needs to allow industry to build new part 23 certificated
airplanes with today's safety enhancing technologies. Although a number
of new small airplanes are being built, many are certified to the Civil
Air Regulations (CAR 3) part 3, or very early amendment levels of part
23, and reflect the level of safety technology available when they were
designed decades ago. Without new airplanes and improved existing
airplanes, we will not see the safety improvements in GA that are
possible with the technology developed since the 1970's. This
rulemaking effort targets: increasing the safety level in new
airplanes; reducing the cost of certification to encourage newer and
safer airplane development; and create new opportunities to address
safety related issues, not just in new airplanes, but eventually with
the existing fleet.
Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-
44702, 44704. Additionally, Public Law 113-53, Small Airplane
Revitalization Act of 2013 (Nov. 27, 2013), requires that the FAA issue
a final rule revising these standards by December 15, 2015.
Alternatives: Several alternatives are considering. 1. Retaining
part 23 in its current form without adopting the recommendations of the
ARC and the CPS. 2. Revising part 23 using a tiered approach and
adopting a performance and complexity tiering structure instead of the
propulsion and weight-based approach used today, but retaining the
detailed design requirements in the rule. 3. Allowing an industry
standard for part 23 entry-level airplanes as an alternative to part
23. Airplanes other than entry-level would still be regulated within
the confines of the existing part 23. being
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the timeframe 2017 to 2036 (2014
$ Millions), the total costs are $3.9 ($3.9 present value) and the
total benefits are $30.8 ($11.6 present value).
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Additionally, Public Law 113-53, Small
Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 states: ``SEC. 3. SAFETY AND
REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR GENERAL AVIATION. (a) IN GENERAL.-- Not
later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue a final rule--''
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Lowell Foster, Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust St., Kansas City, MO 64106,
Phone: 816-329-4125, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK65
DOT--FAA
Final Rule Stage
90. +Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; Pub. L. 112-95
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 91.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 14, 2014, Pub. L. 112-95,
sec 332(b) requires issuance of final rule 18 months after integration
plan is submitted to Congress. Integration plan due Feb. 14, 2013.
Abstract: This rulemaking would allow the commercial operation of
small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) in the National Airspace
System (NAS). These changes would address the operation of small
unmanned aircraft systems, certification of their operators,
registration of the small unmanned aircraft, and display of
registration markings. This action would also find airworthiness
certification is not required for small unmanned aircraft system
operations subject to this rulemaking.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking would amend regulations to adopt
specific rules for the operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in
the National Airspace System (NAS). These changes would address the
classification of small UAS, certification of small UAS pilots,
registration of small UAS, and small UAS operational limits. The
changes are necessary to allow for routine non-recreational operation
of small UAS. Absent this rulemaking effort, operators would need to
file a request for exemption or certificate of waiver to operate.
Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I,
section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including
the authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, Safety Regulation.
Pursuant to section 44701 (a)(5), the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other
[[Page 77837]]
things, prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in
air commerce and national security. This rulemaking is within the scope
of that authority.
Alternatives: The overall quantified benefits to society will
eventually be determined by market forces and the ingenuity of the
entrepreneurs. We expect markets to evolve within the constraints of
the proposed requirements and we assess the potential market within the
context of the demand for sUAS services. We estimate the total benefits
and costs associated with the requirements contained in the proposal.
As this is an enabling rulemaking action, the estimated benefits cannot
yet be quantified. The total estimated costs are $8.0 million.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs are estimated at
$6,803,100 ($5,714,000 present value). The FAA has not quantified the
benefits for this rulemaking because we lack sufficient data. The FAA
invited commenters to provide data that could be used to quantify the
benefits of this rulemaking.
Risks: Commercial operations currently have no legal means to
conduct operations without an FAA-issued exemption.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/23/15 80 FR 9544
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/24/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
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: Lance Nuckolls, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Integration Office, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, Phone:
202 267-8447, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AJ60
DOT--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)
Proposed Rule Stage
91. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP-21)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-141 sec 1203; 49 FR 1.85
CFR Citation: 23 CFR 490.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21.
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This
rulemaking covers Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and
Freight issues.
Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals,
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the
third of three that would propose the establishment of performance
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid
highway programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas
mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance
measures for State DOTs to use in the areas of Congestion Reduction,
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program (CMAQ),
Freight, and Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate National Highway
System.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8028, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2125-AF54
DOT--FHWA
Final Rule Stage
92. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Map-21)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 150
CFR Citation: 23 CFR 490.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21.
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The
FHWA anticipates publishing up to three separate rulemakings to address
the different areas covered by this section. This rulemaking, the
first, will cover safety.
Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals,
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid
highway program, and improves project decision-making through
performance-based planning
[[Page 77838]]
and programming. This rulemaking is the first of three that would
propose the establishment of performance measures for State DOTs and
MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess
performance in each of the 12 areas mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking
would establish performance measures to carry out the Highway Safety
Improvement Program and to assess serious injuries and fatalities, both
in number and expressed as a rate, on all public roads. In addition
this rulemaking would establish the process for State DOTs and MPOs to
use to establish and report safety targets, and the process that FHWA
will use to assess progress State DOTs have made in achieving safety
targets.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates show that the
total costs for a 10 year period is $66,695,260 (undiscounted),
$53,873,609 (7% discount rate), and $60,504,205 (3% discount rate). The
DOT performed a break-even analysis that estimates the number of
fatalities and incapacitating injuries the rule would need to prevent
for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. Preliminary
estimates show that the proposed rule would need to prevent
approximately 7 fatalities over 10 years, or less than one avoided
fatality per year nationwide, to outweigh the anticipated costs of the
proposed rule. When the break-even analysis uses incapacitating
injuries as the reduction metric, preliminary estimates show that the
proposed rule must be responsible for reducing approximately 153
incapacitating injuries over 10 years, or approximately 15 per year, to
outweigh the anticipated costs of the proposed rule. In other words,
the proposed rule must result in approximately 7 fewer fatalities,
which is equivalent to approximately 153 fewer incapacitating injuries,
over 10 years, for the proposed rule to be cost-beneficial.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change
after interagency review.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/11/14 79 FR 13846
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/09/14 .......................
Comment Period Extended............. 06/30/14 79 FR 30508
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8028, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2125-AF49
DOT--FHWA
93. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Map-21)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-141 sec 1203; 49 CFR 1.85
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21.
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This
rulemaking, number two, will cover the bridges and pavement.
Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals,
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the
second of three that would propose the establishment of performance
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid
highway programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas
mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance
measures for State DOTs to use to carry out the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess: Condition of pavements on the
National Highways System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate System),
condition of pavements on the Interstate System, and condition of
bridges on the NHS. This rulemaking would also propose: The definitions
that will be applicable to the new 23 CFR 490; the process to be used
by State DOTs and MPOs to establish performance targets that reflect
the measures proposed in this rulemaking; a methodology to be used to
assess State DOTs compliance with the target achievement provision
specified under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7); and the process to be followed by
State DOTs to report on progress towards the achievement of pavement
and bridge condition-related performance targets.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FHWA estimated the incremental
costs associated with the new requirements proposed in this regulatory
action that represent a change to current practices for State DOTs and
MPOs. Following this approach, the estimated 10-year undiscounted
incremental costs to comply with this rule are $196.4 million. The FHWA
could not directly quantify the expected benefits due to data
limitations and the amorphous nature of the benefits from the proposed
rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate the benefits, FHWA used a break-
even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. For both
pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its break-even analysis on Vehicle
Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The FHWA estimated the number of road
miles of deficient pavement that would have to be improved and the
number of posted bridges that would have to be avoided in order for the
benefits of the rule to justify the costs. The results of the break-
even analysis quantified the dollar value of the benefits that the
proposed rule must generate to outweigh the threshold value, the
estimated cost of the proposed rule, which is $196.4 million in
undiscounted dollars. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would
[[Page 77839]]
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would
outweigh the costs.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change
after interagency review.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/05/15 80 FR 326
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 02/17/15 80 FR 8250
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/06/15
NPRM Extended Comment Period End.... 05/08/15
Final Rule.......................... 05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8028, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2125-AF53
DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
94. +Carrier Safety Fitness Determination
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31144; sec 4009 of TEA-21
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 385.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt revised methodologies that would result
in a safety fitness determination (SFD). The proposed methodologies
would determine when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in or affecting interstate commerce based on (1)
the carrier's on-road safety performance in relation to five of the
Agency's seven Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories
(BASICs); (2) an investigation; or (3) a combination of on-road safety
data and investigation information. The intended effect of this action
is to more effectively use FMCSA data and resources to identify unfit
motor carriers and to remove them from the Nation's roadways.
Statement of Need: Because of the time and expense associated with
the on-site compliance review, only a small fraction of carriers
(approximately 7,000) receive a safety fitness determination each year.
Since the current safety fitness determination process is based
exclusively on the results of an on-site comprehensive compliance
review, the great majority of carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction do
not receive a timely determination of their safety fitness. The
proposed methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness
should correct many of the deficiencies of the current process. In
correcting these deficiencies, FMCSA has made a concerted effort to
develop a ``transparent'' method for the Safety Fitness Determination
(SFD) that would allow each motor carrier to understand fully how FMCSA
established that carrier's specific SFD.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based primarily on the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which directs the Secretary of
Transportation to ``determine whether an owner or operator is fit to
operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to ``maintain by regulation a
procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner or operator.''
This statute was first enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act
of 1984, section 215, Public Law 98-554, 98 Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984).
The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133,
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act
now found in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These powers include,
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations,
compile statistics, require production of records and property,
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to perform other
acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the data
used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new
methodology for safety fitness determinations. Under 49 CFR 1.87, the
Secretary has delegated the authority to carry out the functions in
subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., to the
FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 are part of subchapter
III of chapter 311.
Alternatives: The Agency has been considering two alternatives.
Each alternative focuses on the carriers with the highest crash rates,
and represent the best opportunity for the Agency to have an impact on
safety with its limited resources. The number of proposed unfit
determinations that would result and the Agency's capacity to manage
this population was also an important consideration in both options.
While the Agency can accommodate the number of investigations and on-
road inspections resulting in proposed unfit determinations based on
its current resources, the number of follow-up enforcement cases,
compliance agreements, and oversight required from this population
maximizes the capacity of the Agency's existing staff to administer the
expected proposed and final unfit determinations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency is continuing to review
the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Preliminary
estimates indicate that annualized benefits may be in the range of $241
to $286 million and annualized costs within the range of $6 and $8
million.
Risks: A risk of incorrectly identifying a compliant carrier as not
compliant and consequently subjecting the carrier to unnecessary
expenses has been analyzed and has been found to be negligible under
the process being proposed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: 0.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: David Miller, Regulatory Development Division,
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Phone: 202 366-5370, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2126-AB11
DOT--FMCSA
95. +Entry-Level Driver Training (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136
[[Page 77840]]
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FMCSA proposes to adopt new standards for mandatory
training requirements for entry-level operators of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) that are required to complete a skills test prior to
obtaining a commercial driver's license (CDL). FMCSA is conducting a
negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) proceeding to implement the new entry-
level driver training (ELDT) provisions in the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and other relevant laws.
Therefore, FMCSA proposes to require persons applying for new or
upgraded CDLs to complete classroom, range, and behind-the-wheel
training from a training provider listed on a National Registry.
Training modules for those individuals applying for a Hazardous
Materials (HM), Passenger (P), or School Bus (S) Endorsement may also
be proposed. This notice of proposed rulemaking would strengthen the
Agency's ELDT requirements, which would enhance the safety of CMV
operations on our Nation's highways.
Statement of Need: The Agency believes this rulemaking would
enhance the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our
nation's highways by establishing a more extensive entry-level driver
training (ELDT) protocol and by increasing the number of drivers who
receive ELDT. It would revise the standards for mandatory training
requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate and
intrastate operations who are required to possess a commercial driver's
license (CDL). FMCSA proposes new training standards for certain
individuals applying for their initial CDL, an upgrade of their CDL
(e.g., a Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL), or a hazardous
materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement for their license.
Summary of Legal Basis: FMCSA's legal authority to propose this
rulemaking is derived from the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1986, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
Alternatives: The Agency has been considering several alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency is continuing to review
the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
Risks: A risk of a driver not receiving adequate training before
applying for a CDL.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sean Gallagher, MC-PRR, Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-3740, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB06
RIN: 2126-AB66
DOT--FMCSA
Final Rule Stage
96. +Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (MAP-
21)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 382.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2014, clearinghouse
required to be established by 10/01/2014.
Abstract: This rulemaking would create a central database for
verified positive controlled substances and alcohol test results for
commercial driver's license (CDL) holders and refusals by such drivers
to submit to testing. This rulemaking would require employers of CDL
holders and service agents to report positive test results and refusals
to test into the Clearinghouse. Prospective employers, acting on an
application for a CDL driver position with the applicant's written
consent to access the Clearinghouse, would query the Clearinghouse to
determine if any specific information about the driver applicant is in
the Clearinghouse before allowing the applicant to be hired and to
drive CMVs. This rulemaking is intended to increase highway safety by
ensuring CDL holders, who have tested positive or have refused to
submit to testing, have completed the U.S. DOT's return-to-duty process
before driving CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. It is also
intended to ensure that employers are meeting their drug and alcohol
testing responsibilities. Additionally, provisions in this rulemaking
would also be responsive to requirements of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. MAP-21 requires creation of
the Clearinghouse by 10/1/14.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking would improve the safety of the
Nation's highways by ensuring that employers know when drivers test
positive for drugs and/or alcohol and are not qualified to perform
safety-sensitive functions. It would also ensure that drivers who have
tested positive and have not completed the return to duty process are
not driving and will ensure that they receive the required evaluation
and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive functions.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 32402 of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 stat.
405) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a national
clearinghouse for controlled substance and alcohol test results of
commercial motor vehicle operators. In addition, FMCSA has general
authority to promulgate safety standards, including those governing
drivers' use of drugs or alcohol while operating a CMV. The Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 Public Law 98-554 (the 1984 Act) provides
authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment
and requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe minimum
safety standards for CMVs. Including: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on CMV
operators do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely;
(3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them
to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) CMV operation does not have a
deleterious effect on physical condition of the operators; and (5) CMV
drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of
regulations promulgated under (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
Alternatives: To be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the final rule the Agency
estimated $230 million in annual benefits from increased crash
reduction from the rule. This is against an estimated $174 million in
total annual costs.
Risks: A risk of not knowing when a driver has not completed the
``return to duty'' process and enabling job-hopping within the
industry.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/20/14 79 FR 9703
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/21/14
[[Page 77841]]
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 04/22/14
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 04/22/14 79 FR 22467
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Additional Information: MAP-21 included provisions for a Drug and
Alcohol Test Clearinghouse that affect this rulemaking.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Juan Moya, Department of Transportation, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4844, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2126-AB18
DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
97. +Rear Seat Belt Reminder System
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.208.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2014, Initiate.
Final, Statutory, October 1, 2015, Final Rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208, occupant crash protection, to require automobile
manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front
passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles.
The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and
thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would
otherwise have been unbelted. This rulemaking would respond in part to
a petition for rulemaking submitted by Public Citizen and Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, as well as to requirements in MAP-21.
Statement of Need: Based on recent FARS data, there was an annual
average of 1,695 rear-seat passenger vehicle occupants killed. Of these
fatalities, 1,057 rear-seat occupants (62.4%) were known to be
unrestrained. According to recent NASS-GES data, there was an annual
average of 46,927 rear-seat occupants injured, of which 15,254 (32.5%)
were unrestrained. These unrestrained occupants who were killed or
injured represent the rear-seat occupant target population. There was
an annual average of 3,846 front outboard passenger seat occupant
fatalities in the FARS data. Of these fatalities, 1,799 occupants
(46.8%) were unrestrained. In addition, according to NASS-GES data,
there was an annual average of 67,948 injured occupants in front
outboard seating positions in crashes. Of those front outboard seat
occupants injured, 20,369 (30%) were unrestrained. These unrestrained
occupants who were killed or injured in crashes represent the front
outboard passenger seat occupant target population.
Summary of Legal Basis: MAP-21 required the Secretary to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt
use warning system for designated seating positions in the rear seat.
[1] It directed the Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the
Secretary determined that such an amendment did not meet the
requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111, to submit a report
to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a standard.
Alternatives: The agency considered several alternatives, including
(1) Low cost front outboard passenger system without occupant
protection; (2) requiring a SBRS for the front center seat; (3) system
hardening from inadvertent and intentional defeat; and (4) awarding
points through NCAP for rear SBRSs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would result in
43.7-65.4 equivalent lives saved (ELS) and 33.7-60.6 ELS at 3% and 7%
discount rates, respectively. The estimated total cost range is $164.3
million to $324.6 million.
Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change
after interagency review.
Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Carla Rush, Safety Standards Engineer, Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4583,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL37
DOT--NHTSA
98. +Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and
Work Trucks: Phase 2
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2); delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 523; 49 CFR 534; 49 CFR 535.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would address fuel efficiency standards
for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks for
model years beyond 2018. This rulemaking would respond to requirements
of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), title 1,
subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 U.S.C. 32902, which
was signed into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that NHTSA
establish a medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck
fuel efficiency improvement program that achieves the maximum feasible
improvement, including standards that are appropriate, cost-effective,
and technologically feasible. The law requires that the new standards
provide at least 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full
model years of regulatory stability (i.e., the standards must remain in
effect for 3 years before they may be amended). This action would
follow the first ever Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
(``Phase 1'') (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011). In June, 2013, the
President's Climate Action Plan called for the Department of
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and
[[Page 77842]]
the Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission
standards in joint rulemaking within the President's second term. In
February, 2014, the President directed DOT and EPA to complete the
second phase of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles during his
second term.
Statement of Need: Setting fuel consumption standards for
commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work
trucks will reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S.
energy security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has been a
national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s.
Transportation accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. petroleum
consumption, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for
about 20 percent of oil use in the U.S. transportation sector. Net
petroleum imports now account for approximately 30 percent of U.S.
petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly
concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price
shocks. Therefore, setting fuel consumption standards for commercial
medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks will
reduce fuel consumption and improve U.S. energy security. In June,
2013, the President's Climate Action Plan called for the Department of
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission
standards in joint rulemaking within the President's second term.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking would respond to
requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49
U.S.C. 32902, which was signed into law December 19, 2007. These
sections authorize the creation of a fuel efficiency improvement
program, designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks,
that includes appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, standards,
and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-
effective and technologically feasible.
Alternatives: In the proposal, NHTSA evaluated five alternatives
for semi tractors and trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and work vans,
vocational vehicles, and separate standards for heavy-duty engines.
Alternative 1 is a no-action alternative that serves as the baseline
for the cost and benefit analyses; Alternative 2 would increase
standards beyond model year 2018 levels in model years 2018 to 2024 or
2025; Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, would set more
stringent standards than Alternative 2 in model years 2018 to 2027;
Alternative 4 approximately achieves the same stringency as Alternative
3 in fewer model years (2018 to 2024 or 2025); and Alternative 5
includes the most stringent of the alternative standards in model years
2018 to 2024 or 2025.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total costs for the
preferred alternative over the lifetimes of model year 2018 to 2029
vehicles are $30.5 billion to $31.1 billion, and estimated total
benefits are $261 billion to $276 billion (3% discount rate).
Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/13/15 80 FR 40137
NPRM: Notice of Public Hearings and 07/28/15 80 FR 44863
Extension of Comment Period.
NPRM: Comment Period Extended....... 09/08/15 80 FR 53756
NPRM: Extended Comment Period End... 09/17/15
NPRM: Extended Comment Period End... 10/01/15
Analyzing Comments.................. 11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: James Tamm, Fuel Economy Division Chief, Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-0515,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL52
DOT--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
Proposed Rule Stage
99. +Transit Asset Management
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5326(d)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2013, Secretary must
issue rule to implement the Transit Asset Management System by October
1, 2013.
Abstract: This ANPRM has been consolidated with the ANPRM for the
National and Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. See 2132-AB20.
This rule will establish a system for Transit Asset Management (TAM)
for all operators of public transportation, for all modes of
transportation throughout the United States. This national system will
be based on the term ``State of Good Repair,'' to be developed through
rulemaking, which will generate accurate data about the condition of
the transit agencies' assets, and performance measures for improving
the conditions of those assets.
Statement of Need: In its most recent biennial Conditions and
Performance Report, FTA estimated that the nation's transit state of
good repair backlog is $86 billion and growing. It is the goal of the
FTA to help bring the nation's public transportation capital assets
into a state of good repair. To attain this goal, this NPRM establishes
the National Transit Asset Management (TAM) System, that includes: The
definition of state of good repair; requirements for Transit Asset
Management Plans based on inventories of transit providers' facilities,
equipment, rolling stock, and infrastructure, their assessments of the
condition of those assets, and a prioritization of projects to meet
state of good repair targets; requirements for reporting to the
National Transit Database; an analytical process and decision support
tool to assist transit provider in estimating their capital investment
needs and prioritizing investments; and technical assistance from FTA.
Also, this NPRM establishes performance measures for classes of assets
and requirements for transit provider's to set performance targets for
assets based on the performance measures. In addition, the National
Transit Asset Management System complements the needs-based, formula
program of Federal financial assistance for State of Good Repair
administered under 49 U.S.C. 5337. The National TAM System is designed
to foster informed decision-making on the needs for repair,
rehabilitation, and
[[Page 77843]]
replacement of capital assets used or available for use in public
transportation, based on accurate and comprehensive data and
information about the condition of those assets. In concert with the
planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and the regulations
there under, FTA expects States, transit providers, and metropolitan
planning organizations to allocate available Federal, State and local
funding towards those capital assets most in need of recapitalization.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5326.
Alternatives: MAP-21 requires the Department to issue this
regulation. This NPRM will set forth FTA's rulemaking goals, soliciting
comments on alternatives to regulation, such circulars and guidance.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of this rulemaking are
unknown, as the prospective shape and direction of the regulatory
obligations are undetermined.
Risks: Regulated parties could raise the traditional concerns about
unfunded Federal mandates and lack of transparency. But, the costs of
developing a TAM Plan are eligible for reimbursement under the section
5307, 5311, and 5337 program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 10/03/13 78 FR 61251
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/02/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 09/30/15 80 FR 58912
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/30/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Bonnie Graves, Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-0644, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Merged with 2132-AB20
RIN: 2132-AB07
DOT--FTA
100. +Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 673.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would establish requirements for States
or recipients to develop and implement individual agency safety plans.
The requirements of this rulemaking will be based on the principles and
concepts of Safety Management Systems (SMS). SMS is the formal, top-
down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risks and assuring
the effectiveness of a transit agency's safety risk controls. SMS
includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for managing
hazards and risks.
Statement of Need: The public transportation industry remains among
the safest surface transportation modes in terms of total reported
safety events, fatalities, and injuries. The National Safety Council
(NSC) reports that, in most locations around the nation, passengers on
public transportation vehicles are 40 to 70 times less likely to
experience an accident than drivers and passengers in private
automobiles. Nonetheless, given the complexity of public transportation
service, the condition and performance of transit equipment and
facilities, turnover in the transit workforce, and the quality of
procedures, training, and supervision, the public transportation
industry remains vulnerable to catastrophic accidents. This Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a minimal set of requirements for
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that would carry out the
several explicit statutory mandates in the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to strengthen the safety of public
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under
chapter 53. This NPRM proposes requirements for the adoption of Safety
Management Systems (SMS) principles and methods; the development,
certification, and update of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans;
and the coordination of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
elements with other FTA programs and proposed rules, as specified in
MAP-21.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Alternatives: MAP-21 requires the Department to issue this
regulation. The NPRM will set forth FTA's proposals for implementing
the requirement for Public Transportation Safety Plans and solicit
comments on alternatives to both the proposals therein and to
regulation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA has determined that this is an
``economically significant'' rule under Executive Order 12866, as it
would cost approximately $111 million in the first year, and $90
million per year thereafter. The average annual cost over a 20-year
horizon period is $92 million. The benefits of the proposed rule are
estimated at $775 million per year over the 20-year horizon period.
Risks: The NPRM is merely a proposal for public comment, and would
not impose any binding obligations. However, given that the safety
program is new, there will likely be significant interest in any action
FTA takes to implement the requirements of the program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Candace Key, Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, Phone: 202 366-4011, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Split from 2132-AB20, Related to 2132-AB22
RIN: 2132-AB23
DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
101. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Liquid Hazardous Pipelines
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would address effective procedures that
hazardous liquid operators can use to improve the protection of High
Consequence Areas (HCA) and other vulnerable areas along their
hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. PHMSA is considering whether
changes are needed to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore
pipelines, whether other areas should be included as HCAs for integrity
management (IM) protections, what the repair time frames should be for
areas outside the HCAs that are
[[Page 77844]]
assessed as part of the IM program, whether leak detection standards
are necessary, valve spacing requirements are needed on new
construction or existing pipelines, and PHMSA should extend regulation
to certain pipelines currently exempt from regulation. The agency would
also address the public safety and environmental aspects any new
requirements, as well as the cost implications and regulatory burden.
Statement of Need: PHMSA is proposing to make the following changes
to the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations: (1) Repeal the
exception for gravity lines; (2) Extend certain reporting requirements
to all hazardous liquid gathering lines; (3) Require inspections of
pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, and
other similar events; (4) Require periodic assessments of pipelines
that are not already covered under the integrity management (IM)
program requirements; (5) Expand the use of leak detection systems on
hazardous liquid pipelines to mitigate the effects of failures that
occur outside of high consequence areas; (6) Modify the IM repair
criteria, both by expanding the list of conditions that require
immediate remediation and consolidating the timeframes for remediating
all other conditions, and apply those same criteria to pipelines that
are not subject to the IM requirements, with an adjusted schedule for
performing non-immediate repairs; and, (7) Increase the use of inline
inspection tools by requiring that any pipeline that could affect a
high consequence area be capable of accommodating these devices within
20 years, unless its basic construction will not permit that
accommodation. (8) Other regulations will also be clarified to improve
compliance and enforcement. These changes will protect the public,
property, and the environment by ensuring that additional pipelines are
subject to regulation, increasing the detection and remediation of
unsafe conditions, and mitigating the adverse effects of pipeline
failures. This rule responds to a congressional mandate in the 2011
Pipeline Reauthorization Act (sections 5, 8, 21, 29, 14); NTSB
recommendation P-12-03 and P-12-04; and GAO recommendation 12-388.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework
for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-129).
Like its predecessor, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub.
L. 90-481), the HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) with the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety
standards for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. That authority, as
amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the
Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
Alternatives: The various alternatives analyzed included no action
``status quo'' and individualized alternatives based on the proposed
amendments.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA cannot estimate costs or
benefits precisely, but based on the information, the present value of
costs and benefits over a 20-year period is approximately $56 million
and $98 million, respectively at 7 percent. Thus, net benefits are
approximately $46 million ($102 million-$56 million) over 20 years.
Risks: The proposed rule will provide increased safety for the
regulated entities and reduce pipeline safety risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 10/18/10 75 FR 63774
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/18/11 .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 01/04/11 76 FR 303
ANPRM Extended Comment Period End... 02/18/11 .......................
NPRM................................ 10/13/15 80 FR 61609
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/08/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: John Gale, Director Standards and Rulemaking,
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Phone: 202 366-0434, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2137-AE66
DOT--PHMSA
102. +Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will be revisiting the
requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations addressing integrity
management principles for Gas Transmission pipelines. In particular,
PHMSA will address: repair criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas,
assessment methods, validating and integrating pipeline data, risk
assessments, knowledge gained through the IM program, corrosion
control, management of change, gathering lines, and safety features on
launchers and receivers.
Statement of Need: PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA
(including the concept of a potential impact radius), the repair
criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic
and remote controlled shut off valves, valve spacing, and whether
applying the integrity management program requirements to additional
areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements. This
rulemaking is in direct response to Congressional mandates in the 2011
Pipeline reauthorization act, specifically; section 4 (e) Gas IM plus 6
months), section 5(IM), 8 (leak detection), 23 (b)(2)(exceedance of
MAOP); section 29 (seismicity).
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has authorized Federal regulation
of the transportation of gas by pipeline under the Commerce Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. Authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety
Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are
administered by the DOT, PHMSA. PHMSA has used that authority to
promulgate comprehensive minimum safety standards for the
transportation of gas by pipeline.
Alternatives: Alternative analyzed included no change and extension
of the compliance deadlines associated with the major cost of the
requirement area; namely, development and implementation of management
of change processes that apply to all gas transmission pipelines beyond
that which already applies to beyond IMP- and control center-related
processes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA does not expect the proposed
rule to adversely affect the economy or any sector of the economy in
terms of productivity and employment, the environment, public health,
safety, or State, local, or tribal government. PHMSA has also
determined, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities in the United States. Additionally, PHMSA
[[Page 77845]]
determined that the rule would not impose annual expenditures on State,
local, or tribal governments in excess of $138 million, and thus does
not require an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act analysis. However, the rule
would impose annual expenditure on private sector in excess of $138
million. Here is a summary of the costs and benefits: Present Values
Calculated at 3 Percent Discount for Gas rule Avg Annual Cost Estimate:
$138.3 Million/year. Avg Annual Benefit Estimate: $204.53 Million/year
Avg Annual Net Benefit Estimate: $68.60 Million/year.
Risks: This proposed rule will strengthen current pipeline
regulations and lower the safety risk of all regulated entities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/25/11 76 FR 53086
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 11/16/11 76 FR 70953
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 12/02/11 .......................
End of Extended Comment Period...... 01/20/12 .......................
NPRM................................ 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: SB-Y IC-N SLT-N.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Cameron H. Satterthwaite, Transportation
Regulations Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8553, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2137-AE72
DOT--PHMSA
103. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 174.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA is seeking comment on revisions
to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) applicable to the
transportation of oil by rail. Currently, the majority of the rail
community transporting oil, including crude oil transported as a
hazardous material, is subject to the basic oil spill response plan
requirement of 49 CFR 130.31(a) based on the understanding that most
rail tank cars being used to transport crude oil have a capacity
greater than 3,500 gallons. However, a comprehensive response plan for
the shipment of oil is only required when the oil is in a quantity
greater than 42,000 gallons per package. Tank cars of this size are not
used to transport oil by rail. As a result, the railroads do not file a
comprehensive oil response plan. Based on this difference and the
recent occurrence of high-profile accidents involving crude oil, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended in Safety
Recommendation R-14-5 that the Department and PHMSA reconsider the
threshold quantity for requiring the development of a comprehensive
response plan for the shipment of oil. In response to the NTSB Safety
Recommendation R-14-5 and significant interest from congressional
stakeholders, environmental groups, and the general public, PHMSA is
seeking specific comment on revisions to the oil spill response plan
requirements in 49 CFR part 130, including threshold quantities.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking is important to mitigate the
effects of potential train accidents involving the release of flammable
liquid energy products by increasing planning and preparedness. The
proposals in this rulemaking are shaped by public comments, National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations, analysis of
recent accidents, and input from stakeholder outreach efforts
(including first responders). To this end, PHMSA will consider
expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans;
clarifying the requirements for comprehensive oil spill response plans;
requiring railroads to share additional information; and providing an
alternative test method for determining the initial boiling point of a
flammable liquid.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe regulations
for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials
in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' The authority of 33
U.S.C. 1321, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), which
directs the President to issue regulations requiring owners and
operators of certain vessels and onshore and offshore oil facilities to
develop, submit, update and in some cases obtain approval of oil spill
response plans. Executive Order 12777 delegated responsibility to the
Secretary of Transportation for certain transportation-related
facilities. The Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority to
promulgate regulations to PHMSA and provides FRA the approval authority
for railroad ORSPs.
Alternatives: PHMSA and FRA are committed to a comprehensive
approach to addressing the risk and consequences of derailments
involving flammable liquids by addressing not only oil spill response
plans, but communication requirements between railroads and
communities. Obtaining information and comments in a NPRM will provide
the greatest opportunity for public participation in the development of
regulatory amendments, and promote greater exchange of information and
perspectives among the various stakeholders to promote future
regulatory action on these issues.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM will request comments on
both the path forward and the economic impacts. We will evaluate
comments prior to developing the final rule, and once the final rule is
drafted the costs and benefits will be detailed.
Risks: DOT analyzed recent incidents, National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations, received input from
stakeholder outreach efforts (including first responders) to determine
amending the applicability and requirements of comprehensive oil spill
response plans and codifying requirements for information sharing is
important. DOT will continue to research these topics and evaluate
comment feedback prior to the final rule. DOT expects the highest
ranked options will be low cost and most effective at providing better
preparedness and planning to mitigate the effects of a derailment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/01/14 79 FR 45079
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 09/30/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 01/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: HM-251B; SB-N, IC-N, SLT-N.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 77846]]
Agency Contact: Ben Supko, Transportation Regulations Specialist,
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Phone: 202 366-8553, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2137-AE91, Related to 2137-AF07
RIN: 2137-AF08
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
To promote prosperous and stable American and world
economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining
our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national
banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of
distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
To manage the Government's finances by protecting the
revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal
Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue functions, financing the
Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing
our Nation's coins and currency.
To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems
from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to
compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free
and open to legitimate users.
Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department
and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement
the laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is
the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public
comments before adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites
interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a
proposed rule is being developed.
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department
to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 and to develop regulations
that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the
economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses
subject to those regulations.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues
regulations to implement and enforce the Federal laws relating to
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain
non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are
designed to:
(1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
ammunition;
(2) protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol
products; and
(3) prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and
tobacco products.
In the last several years, TTB has identified changes in the
industries it regulates, as well as new technologies available in
compliance enforcement. In response, TTB has focused on revising its
regulations to ensure that it accomplishes its mission in a way that
facilitates industry growth and reduces burdens where possible, while
at the same time collecting the revenue and protecting consumers from
deceptive labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages. This
modernization effort resulted in the publishing of two key rulemakings
that took effect in FY 2014-15 that reduced burden on TTB-regulated
industry members.
On March 27, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 17029)
amending its regulations in 27 CFR part 73 regarding the electronic
submission of forms and other documents. Among other things, this rule
provided for the electronic submission to TTB of forms requiring third-
party signatures, such as bond forms and powers of attorney. It also
provided that any requirement in the TTB regulations to submit a
document to another agency may be met by the electronic submission of
the document to the other agency, as long as the other agency provides
for, and authorizes, the electronic submission of such document.
On September 30, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 58674)
that reduced the compliance burden for the beer industry. This rule
reduced the penal sum of the bond required for certain small brewers to
a flat $1,000, which applies to brewers whose excise tax liability is
reasonably expected to be not more than $50,000 in a given calendar
year and who were liable for not more than $50,000 in such taxes in the
preceding calendar year. Additionally, TTB adopted as a final rule its
prior proposal to provide that those brewers must file Federal excise
tax returns, pay tax, and submit reports of operations less frequently,
that is every quarter rather than twice monthly.
As part of this rulemaking, TTB also made a number of changes to
the forms brewers use to report on their operations. The two versions
of the Brewer's Report of Operations forms (TTB F 5130.9 and TTB F
5130.26) were streamlined based on feedback from the industry. These
changes included removing two separate parts, adding clarifying
instructions, and revising TTB F 5130.26 (previously for brewpub
reporting only) to be an ``EZ'' reporting option for small brewers to
facilitate the new quarterly reporting mandate. TTB released the new
versions of the reports in the second quarter of FY 2015. This
combination of regulatory amendments and form changes have reduced
regulatory burdens and administrative costs for small brewers and
created administrative efficiencies for TTB.
In FY 2016, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that will update its
Import and Export regulations, Labeling Requirements regulations,
Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations,
Nonbeverage Products regulations, Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting
requirements, and Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations of the Alcohol
Beverage Labeling Act regulation.
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following
regulatory matters:
Revisions to Export and Import Regulations Related to the
International Trade Data System. TTB is currently preparing for the
implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and,
specifically, the transition to an all-electronic import and export
environment. The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'')
(Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information exchange capability,
or ``single window,'' through which businesses will transmit data
required by participating Federal agencies for the importation or
exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination associated with
the development of the ITDS and put in place specific deadlines for
implementation, President Obama, on February 19, 2014, signed an
Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's
Businesses. In line with section 3(e) of the Executive Order, TTB was
required to develop a timeline for ITDS implementation. Updating the
regulations for transition to the all-
[[Page 77847]]
electronic environment is part of the implementation process.
TTB has completed its review of the relevant regulatory
requirements and identified those that it intends to update to address
an all-electronic environment. As noted above, TTB regulations in 27
CFR part 73 have already been amended to remove regulatory barriers to
the electronic submission of TTB-required documents to another agency.
In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to
propose changes to TTB regulatory sections that address the submission
of information or documentation at importation, and to update and
streamline TTB regulatory processes for importations and make clear the
circumstances in which the submission of certain data elements replaces
the submission of paper documents. Specifically, TTB will propose that
data from certain forms (e.g., the TTB F 5100.31 (Application for and
Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval)) may be submitted
electronically at importation through the ``single window'' in lieu of
the submission of the paper documents to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection personnel. TTB also reviewed existing requirements and
processes to determine how the all-electronic environment can be used
to reduce burden. For example, many regulatory provisions in TTB's
import and export regulations require forms to be submitted in
triplicate or quadruplicate, and the availability of the relevant data
electronically makes such multiple submissions unnecessary. The
amendments to the regulations that TTB will propose to implement ITDS
for imports will facilitate legitimate trade and allow enforcement
resources to be focused on identifying noncompliance.
On August 7, 2015, TTB published a notice (80 FR 47558) announcing
a pilot program for importers who want to gain experience with the ITDS
``single window'' functionality for providing data on the TTB-regulated
commodities. This pilot program will help familiarize both TTB and the
public with the new environment and assist TTB and the public to refine
the implementation of ITDS. TTB is planning to publish rulemaking on
its import and export regulations in FY 2016, and the pilot program
will provide valuable information for this undertaking.
In addition, in recent years, TTB has identified selected sections
of its export regulations (27 CFR parts 28 and 44) that it intends to
amend to clarify and update the requirements. Under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), the products taxed by TTB may be removed
for exportation without payment of tax or with drawback of any excise
tax previously paid, subject to the submission of proof of export.
However, the current export regulations require industry members to
obtain documents and follow procedures that do not reflect current
technology or take into account current industry business practices.
The notice of proposed rulemaking that TTB will publish to implement
ITDS for exports will include proposals to amend the regulations to
provide industry members with clear and updated procedures for removal
of alcohol and tobacco products for exportation, thus facilitating
exportation of those products. Increasing U.S. exports benefits the
U.S. economy and is consistent with Treasury and Administration
priorities.
Revisions to the Labeling Requirements (Parts 4 (Wine), 5
(Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt Beverages)). The Federal Alcohol
Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in
interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the
mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding
improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB conducted an analysis
of its labeling regulations to identify any that might be outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that analysis.
These regulations were also reviewed to assess their applicability to
the modern alcohol beverage marketplace. As a result of this review,
TTB plans to propose in FY 2016 revisions to modernize the regulations
concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled spirits, and
malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory changes will
assist industry in voluntarily complying with these requirements for
the over 160,000 label applications that are projected to be submitted
in FY 2016, which will decrease industry burden associated with the
label approval requirement and result in the regulated industries being
able to bring products to market without undue delay.
Revisions to Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol
Regulations. TTB proposed changes to regulations for specially
denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) that
will provide a reduction in regulatory burden while posing no risk to
the revenue.
Under the authority of the IRC, TTB regulates denatured alcohol
that is unfit for beverage use, which may be removed from a regulated
distilled spirits plant free of tax. SDA and CDA are widely used in the
American fuel, medical, and manufacturing sectors. The industrial
alcohol industry far exceeds the beverage alcohol industry in size and
scope, and it is a rapidly growing industry in the United States. Some
concerns have been raised that the current regulations may create
significant roadblocks for industry members in getting products to the
marketplace quickly and efficiently. To help alleviate these concerns,
TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 38628) and, in FY
2016, plans to issue a final rule that will reclassify certain SDA
formulas as CDA and issue new general-use formulas for articles made
with SDA.
TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent
reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from
industry members. The reduction in formula submissions will enable TTB
to redirect its resources to address backlogs that exist in other areas
of TTB's mission activities, such as analyses of compliance samples for
industrial/fuel alcohol to protect the revenue and working with
industry to test and approve new and more environmentally friendly
denaturants. Additionally, the reclassification of certain SDA formulas
as CDA formulas will not jeopardize the revenue because it is more
difficult to separate potable alcohol from CDA than it is from SDA, and
CDA is less likely to be used for beverage purposes due to its taste.
Similarly, authorizing new general-use formulas will not jeopardize the
revenue because it will be difficult to remove potable alcohol from
articles made with the specific SDA formulations. Other changes made by
this final rule will remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and update
the regulations to align them with current industry practice.
Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, Drawback on Taxpaid Distilled
Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products, to Allow Self-
Certification of Nonbeverage Product Formulas. TTB is considering
revisions to the regulations in 27 CFR part 17 governing nonbeverage
products made with taxpaid distilled spirits. These nonbeverage
products include foods, medicines, and flavors. This proposal, which
TTB intends to publish in FY 2016, offers a new method of formula
certification by incorporating quantitative standards into the
regulations and establishing new voluntary procedures that would
further
[[Page 77848]]
streamline the formula review process for products that meet the
standards. This proposal provides adequate protection to the revenue
because TTB will continue to receive submissions of certified formulas;
however, TTB will not take action on certified formula submissions
unless TTB discovers that the formulas require correction. By allowing
for self-certification of certain nonbeverage product formulas, this
proposal would nearly eliminate the need for TTB to formally approve
all such formulas. These changes would result in significant cost
savings for the nonbeverage alcohol industry, which currently must
obtain formula approval from TTB, and some savings for TTB, which must
review and take action to approve or disapprove each formula.
Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements. In FY
2012, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to
revise regulations in 27 CFR part 19 to replace the current four report
forms used by distilled spirits plants to report their operations on a
monthly basis with two new report forms that would be submitted on a
monthly basis. (Plants that file taxes on a quarterly basis would
submit the new reports on a quarterly basis.) This project will address
numerous concerns and desires for improved reporting by the distilled
spirits industry and result in cost savings to industry and TTB by
significantly reducing the number of monthly plant operations reports
that must be completed and filed by industry members and processed by
TTB. TTB preliminarily estimates that this project will result in a
reduction of paperwork burden hours for industry members, as well as
savings in processing hours and contractor time for TTB. In addition,
TTB estimates that this project will result in additional savings in
staff time based on the more efficient and effective processing of
reports and the use of report data to reconcile industry member tax
accounts. In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a Supplemental NPRM that
will include new proposals to address comments received in response to
the initial NPRM.
Inflation Adjustment to the Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations
of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. The Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to adjust certain
civil monetary penalties for inflation according to a formula set out
in the statute. In FY 2016, TTB plans to publish a final rule
increasing the maximum penalty for violations of the Alcohol Beverage
Labeling Act from $11,000 (the level at which it was set following the
first inflation adjustment in 1996) to $16,000. The increased maximum
penalty will help maintain the deterrent effect of the penalty.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund)
was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The mission of the
CDFI Fund is to increase economic opportunity and promote community
development investments for underserved populations and in distressed
communities in the United States. The CDFI Fund currently administers
the following programs: The Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program,
the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, the New Markets Tax
Credit (NMTC) Program, the Financial Education and Counseling Pilot
Program (FEC), the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond
Guarantee Program (BGP).
In FY 2016, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for its
Capital Magnet Fund (CMF) to incorporate the requirements of the
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) and make other policy
updates.
Customs Revenue Functions
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although
many functions of the former United States Customs Service were
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue
functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions
to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No.
100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of
Homeland Security authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to the
customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions. This Order
further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole
authority to approve such regulations.
During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function
regulations issued were the United States-Australia Free Trade
Agreement interim final rule, the Documentation Related to Goods
Imported from U.S. Insular Possessions final rule, Technical
Corrections to the North American Free Trade Agreement Uniform
Regulations final rule, and Liberalization of Certain Documentary
Evidence Required As Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims final
rule. On February 10, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
published the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement interim
final rule (80 FR 7303) to the CBP regulations, which implemented the
preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In
addition, on May 11, 2015, CBP and Treasury issued a final rule (80 FR
26828) titled ``Technical Corrections to the North American Free Trade
Agreement Uniform Regulations'' which amended CBP regulations
implementing conforming changes of the preferential tariff treatment
and other customs-related provisions of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) entered into by the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. On August 7, 2015, CBP issued a final rule (80 FR 47405) titled
``Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required As Proof of
Exportation on Drawback Claims'' which amended CBP regulations by
removing some of the requirements for documentation used to establish
proof of exportation for drawback claims.
This past fiscal year, consistent with the goals of Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, Treasury and CBP issued a final rule titled
``Documentation Related to Goods Imported From U.S. Insular
Possessions'' on February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7537), that amended CBP
regulations to eliminate the requirement that a customs officer at the
port of export verify and sign CBP Form 3229, Certificate of Origin for
U.S. Insular Possessions, and to require instead that the importer
present this form, upon CBP's request, rather than submit it with each
entry as the current regulations require. The amendments streamline the
entry process by making it more efficient as it would reduce the
overall administrative burden on both the trade and CBP. If the
importer does not maintain CBP Form 3229 in its possession, the
importer may be subject to a recordkeeping penalty.
Treasury and CBP are currently working towards the implementation
of the International Trade Data System (ITDS). The ITDS, as described
in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of
2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') (Public Law 109-347), is an electronic
information
[[Page 77849]]
exchange capability, or ``Single Window,'' through which businesses
will transmit data required by participating agencies for the
importation or exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination
associated with the development of the ITDS, Treasury and CBP plan to
issue an interim regulation which will to reflect that on November 1,
2015, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is a CBP-authorized
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System. This regulatory document
informs the public that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) is being
phased out as a CBP-authorized EDI System for the processing electronic
entry and entry summary filings (also known as entry filings). In the
future when there is full functionality, ACE will replace the Automated
Commercial System (ACS) as the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing
commercial trade data.
During fiscal year 2016, CBP and Treasury also plan to give
priority to the following regulatory matters involving the customs
revenue functions:
Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights
Enforced at the Border. Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim
amendments to the CBP regulations which provides a pre-seizure notice
procedure for disclosing information appearing on the imported
merchandise and/or its retail packing suspected of bearing a
counterfeit mark to an intellectual property right holder for the
limited purpose of obtaining the right holder's assistance in
determining whether the mark is counterfeit or not.
Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and CBP also plan to issue final
regulations this fiscal year to implement the preferential trade
benefit provisions of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act. Treasury and CBP also expect to issue final
regulations implementing the preferential trade benefit provisions of
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
In-Bond Process. Consistent with the practice of continuing to move
forward with Customs Modernization provisions of the North American
Free Trade Implementation Act to improve its regulatory procedures,
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize this fiscal year the proposal to
change the in-bond process by issuing final regulations to amend the
in-bond regulations that were proposed on February 22, 2012 (77 FR
10622). The proposed changes, including the automation of the in-bond
process, would modernize, simplify, and facilitate the in-bond process
while enhancing CBP's ability to regulate and track in-bond merchandise
to ensure that in-bond merchandise is properly entered or exported.
Inter-Partes Proceedings Concerning Exclusion Orders Based on
Unfair Practices in Import Trade. Treasury and CBP plans to publish a
proposal to amend its regulations with respect to administrative
rulings related to the importation of articles in light of exclusion
orders issued by the United States International Trade Commission
(``Commission'') under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended. The proposed amendments seek to promote the speed, accuracy,
and transparency of such rulings through the creation of an inter
partes proceeding to replace the current ex parte process.
Customs and Border Protection's Bond Program. Treasury and CBP plan
to publish a final rule amending the regulations to reflect the
centralization of the continuous bond program at CBP's Revenue
Division. The changes proposed would support CBP's bond program by
ensuring an efficient and uniform approach to the approval,
maintenance, and periodic review of continuous bonds, as well as
accommodating the use of information technology and modern business
practices.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The primary mission of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC) is to charter, regulate, and supervise all national
banks and Federal Savings Associations (FSAs). The agency also
supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The
OCC's goal in supervising the financial institutions subject to its
jurisdiction is to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner
and in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers
and fair access to credit and financial products.
Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2015 include:
Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association
Regulations: Licensing Rules (12 CFR parts 4, 5, 7, 14, 32, 34, 100,
116, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 174, 192,
and 193). The OCC issued a final rule that integrates its rules
relating to policies and procedures for corporate activities and
transactions involving national banks and FSAs. The final rule also
revises some of these rules in order to eliminate unnecessary
requirements, consistent with safety and soundness; promote fairness in
supervision; and to make other technical and conforming changes. The
final rule also includes amendments to update OCC rules for agency
organization and function. The final rule was issued on May 18, 2015,
80 FR 28345.
Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 172). The banking agencies,\1\
Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) revised their regulations regarding loans in
areas having special flood hazards to implement provisions of the
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), which
amends some of the changes to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
mandated by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012
(Biggert-Waters). The rule requires the escrow of flood insurance
payments on residential improved real estate securing a loan,
consistent with the changes set forth in HFIAA. The final rule also
incorporates an exemption in HFIAA for certain detached structures from
the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. The rule also
implements the provisions of Biggert-Waters related to the force
placement of flood insurance. Finally, the rule integrates the OCC's
flood insurance regulations for national banks and Federal savings
associations. The final rule was issued on July 21, 2015, 80 FR 43216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(Board), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appraisal Management Companies (12 CFR part 34). The banking
agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), NCUA and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule that sets
minimum standards for state registration and supervision of appraisal
management companies (AMCs). The rule implements the minimum
requirements in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act to be applied by
states in the registration and supervision of AMCs. It also implements
the requirement in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act for states to
report to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council the information needed by the ASC to
administer the national registry of AMCs. The final rule was issued on
June 6, 2015, 80 FR 32658.
Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR
part 45). The banking agencies, FCA, and FHFA issued a proposed rule to
establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap
dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and
major security-based swap participants for which one of the agencies is
the prudential regulator. The proposed rule
[[Page 77850]]
will implement sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which
require the agencies to adopt rules jointly to establish capital
requirements and initial and variation margin requirements for such
entities on all non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps
in order to offset the greater risk to such entities and the financial
system arising from the use of swaps and security-based swaps that are
not cleared. A second proposal was issued on September 24, 2014, 79 FR
57348.
Credit Risk Retention (12 CFR part 43). The banking agencies,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FHFA, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued rules to implement the
credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by section 941 of the
Dodd-Frank Act. Section 15G generally requires the securitizer of
asset-backed securities to retain not less than 5 percent of the credit
risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. Section
15G includes a variety of exemptions from these requirements, including
an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized
exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as ``qualified
residential mortgages,'' as such term is defined by the agencies by
rule. The final rule was issued on December 24, 2014, 78 FR 77602.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include finalizing any
proposals listed above as well as the following rulemakings:
Automated Valuation Models (parts 34, 164). The banking agencies,
NCUA, FHFA and CFPB, in consultation with the ASC and the Appraisal
Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, are required to promulgate
regulations to implement quality-control standards required under the
statute. Section 1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated
valuation models used to estimate collateral value in connection with
mortgage origination and securitization activity, comply with quality-
control standards designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the
estimates produced by automated valuation models; protect against
manipulation of data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; require
random sample testing and reviews; and account for other factors the
agencies deem appropriate. The agencies plan to issue a proposed rule
to implement the requirement to adopt quality-control standards.
Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section
956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, NCUA, SEC, and
FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance prohibiting any type
of incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such
arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate
risks by covered financial institutions by providing an executive
officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive
compensation, fees or benefits, or that could lead to material
financial loss to the covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act
also requires such agencies to jointly prescribe regulations or
guidance requiring each covered financial institution to disclose to
its regulator the structure of all incentive-based compensation
arrangements offered by such institution sufficient to determine
whether the compensation structure provides any officer, employee,
director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could
lead to material financial loss to the institution. The proposed rule
was issued on April 14, 2011, 76 FR 21170.
Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to
issue a proposed rule to implement section 616(d) of the Dodd-Frank
Act. Section 616(d) requires that bank holding companies, savings and
loan holding companies and other companies that directly or indirectly
control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength
for the insured depository institution. The appropriate Federal banking
agency for the insured depository institution may require that the
company submit a report that would assess the company's ability to
comply with the provisions of the statute and its compliance.
Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50). The banking agencies
plan to issue a proposed rule to implement the Basel net stable funding
ratio standards. These standards would require large, internationally
active banking organizations to maintain sufficient stable funding to
support their assets, generally over a one-year time horizon.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and
implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-
money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's
responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that
role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national
security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse
by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and
other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of
intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against
international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity.
These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2)
supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3)
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to
that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5)
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement,
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6)
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
During fiscal year 2015, FinCEN issued the following regulatory
actions:
Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Investment
Advisers. On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment on
proposed rules under the BSA that would prescribe minimum standards for
anti-money laundering programs to be established by certain investment
advisers and to require such investment advisers to report suspicious
activity to FinCEN.
Imposition of Special Measure against FBME Bank Ltd., formerly
known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., as a Financial
Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On July 29, 2015,
FinCEN issued a final rule
[[Page 77851]]
imposing the fifth special measure under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT
Act against FBME. The fifth special measure prohibits or conditions the
opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for
the designated institution by U.S. financial institutions. This action
followed a notice of finding issued on July 22, 2014 that FBME is a
financial institution of primary money laundering concern and an NPRM
proposing the imposition of the fifth special measure. FBME filed suit
on August 7, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia; FBME also moved for a preliminary injunction. On August
27, 2015, the Court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined the
rule from taking effect until a final judgment is entered.
Imposition of Special Measure against Banca Privada d'Andorra as a
Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On March 10,
2015, FinCEN issued a finding that Banca Privada d'Andorra is a
financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of
primary money laundering concern under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT
Act. Also on March 10, 2015, FinCEN issued an NPRM to impose the fifth
special measure against the institution. The fifth special measure
prohibits or conditions the opening or maintaining of correspondent or
payable-through accounts for the designated institution by U.S.
financial institutions.
Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 4
administrative rulings and written guidance pieces, and provided 30
responses to written inquiries/correspondence interpreting the BSA and
providing clarity to regulated industries.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by
fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential
projects:
Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On August 4, 2014, FinCEN
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment
on proposed rules under the BSA to clarify and strengthen customer due
diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities,
mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers
in commodities. The proposed rules contain explicit customer due
diligence requirements and include a new regulatory requirement to
identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to
certain exemptions.
Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. FinCEN has drafted
an NPRM to address requests from filers for clarification of certain
requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial
Accounts (FBAR), including requirements with respect to employees, who
have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the
foreign financial accounts of their employers.
Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds. On September 27,
2010, FinCEN issued an NPRM in conjunction with the feasibility study
prepared pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 concerning the issue of obtaining information about certain
cross-border funds transfers and transmittals of funds. As FinCEN has
continued to work on developing the system to receive, store, and use
this data, FinCEN has drafted a Supplemental NPRM to update the
previously published proposed rule and provide additional information
to those banks and money transmitters that will become subject to the
rule.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a
Federal Functional Regulator. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM to remove the
anti-money laundering (AML) program exemption for banks that lack a
Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private
banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust
companies. The proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML
programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they
are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to
establish and implement AML programs.
Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities.
FinCEN has drafted an NPRM that proposes amendments to the regulatory
definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA
regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the
definitions to include funding portals and would require them to
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with all of the BSA requirements that are currently
applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Registration
Requirements of Money Services Businesses. FinCEN is considering
issuing an NPRM to amend the requirements for money services businesses
with respect to registering with FinCEN.
Changes to the Travel and Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds
Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. FinCEN is considering changes to
require that more information be collected and maintained by financial
institutions on funds transfers and transmittals of funds and to lower
the threshold.
Changes to the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report (CMIR)
Reporting Requirements. FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze
relevant data to validate the need for changes aimed at updating and
improving the CMIR and ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas
of study to be examined could include current trends in cash
transportation across international borders, transparency levels of
physical transportation of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing
data fields with bordering countries, and information derived from
FinCEN's experience with Geographic Targeting Orders.
Other Requirements. FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and
final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as
appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance
regulatory efficiency, and as a result of the efforts of an interagency
task force currently focusing on improvements to the U.S. regulatory
framework for anti-money laundering.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers
regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities,
including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including
regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities, (2) Administering
Government revenue and debt collection, (3) Administering
Governmentwide accounting programs, (4) Managing certain Federal
investments, (5) Disbursing the majority of Government electronic and
check payments, (6) Assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number
of improper payments, and (7) Providing administrative and operational
support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
During fiscal year 2016, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to
the following regulatory projects:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Publishing Delinquent Debtor
Information. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes
[[Page 77852]]
Federal agencies to publish or otherwise publicly disseminate
information regarding the identity of persons owing delinquent nontax
debts to the United States for the purpose of collecting the debts,
provided certain criteria are met. Treasury proposes to issue a notice
of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on a proposed rule that would
establish the procedures Federal agencies must follow before
promulgating their own rules to publish information about delinquent
debtors and the standards for determining when use of this debt
collection remedy is appropriate.
Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect Past-Due Support.
Currently, there is no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were
collected from tax refunds to which the debtor taxpayer was not
entitled. An interim rule with request for comments would provide a
time limit for such recoupments.
Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection Improvement
Act of 1996. The Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014
changed the statutory requirement for federal agencies to submit
delinquent debts to Treasury for purposes of administrative offset from
180 days delinquent to 120 days delinquent. The direct final rule will
amend the regulations to conform to that statutory change.
Amendment to Savings Bond Regulations. Fiscal Service plans to
amend regulations in 31 CFR parts 315, 353, and 360 to allow
consideration of certain state escheat claims when the state cannot
show that the owner, coowner, or beneficiary is deceased.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of Tax
Policy, promulgates regulations that interpret and implement the
Internal Revenue Code (Code) and related tax statutes. The purpose of
these regulations is to carry out the tax policy determined by Congress
in a fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, taking into account the
intent of Congress, the realities of relevant transactions, the need
for the Government to administer the rules and monitor compliance, and
the overall integrity of the Federal tax system. The goal is to make
the regulations practical and as clear and simple as possible.
During fiscal year 2016, the IRS will accord priority to the
following regulatory projects:
Tax-Related Affordable Care Act Provisions. On March 23, 2010, the
President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111-148) and on March 30, 2010, the President signed the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152)
(referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). The ACA's
reform of the health insurance system affects individuals, families,
employers, health care providers, and health insurance providers. The
ACA provides authority for Treasury and the IRS to issue regulations
and other guidance to implement tax provisions in the ACA, some of
which are already effective and some of which will become effective
over the next several years. Since enactment of the ACA, Treasury and
the IRS have issued a series of temporary, proposed, and final
regulations implementing over a dozen provisions of the ACA, including
the premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code, the small-
business health coverage tax credit under section 45R of the Code, new
requirements for charitable hospitals under section 501(r) of the Code,
limits on tax preferences for remuneration provided by certain health
insurance providers under section 162(m)(6) of the Code, the employer
shared responsibility provisions under section 4980H of the Code, the
individual shared responsibility provisions under section 5000A of the
Code, insurer and employer reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of
the Code, and several revenue-raising provisions, including fees on
branded prescription drugs under section 9008 of the ACA, fees on
health insurance providers under section 9010 of the ACA, the tax on
indoor tanning services under 5000B of the Code, the net investment
income tax under section 1411 of the Code, and the additional Medicare
tax under sections 3101 and 3102 of the Code.
In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and the IRS will continue to provide
guidance to implement tax provisions of the ACA, including:
Proposed and final regulations related to numerous aspects
of the premium tax credit under section 36B, including the
determination of minimum value of eligible-employer-sponsored plans;
Regulations under section 4980I of the Code relating to
the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage;
Regulations on expatriate health plans under the
Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 for purposes of
sections 36B, 4980I, and 5000A of the Code, and section 9010 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health
Care and Education Reconciliation Act;
Final regulations regarding issues related to the net
investment income tax under section 1411 of the Code.
Interest on Deferred Tax Liability for Contingent Payment
Installment Sales. Section 453 of the Code generally allows taxpayers
to report the gain from a sale of property in the taxable year or years
in which payments are received, rather than in the year of sale.
Section 453A of the Code imposes an interest charge on the tax
liability that is deferred as a result of reporting the gain when
payments are received. The interest charge generally applies to
installment obligations that arise from a sale of property using the
installment method if the sales price of the property exceeds $150,000,
and the face amount of all such installment obligations held by a
taxpayer that arose during, and are outstanding as of the close of, a
taxable year exceeds $5,000,000. The interest charge provided in
section 453A cannot be determined under the terms of the statute if an
installment obligation provides for contingent payments. Accordingly,
in section 453A(c)(6), Congress authorized the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue regulations providing for the application of section
453A in the case of installment sales with contingent payments.
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that, when
finalized, will provide guidance and reduce uncertainty regarding the
application of section 453A to contingent payments.
Rules for Home Construction Contracts. In general, section 460(a)
of the Code requires taxpayers to use the percentage-of-completion
method (PCM) to account for taxable income from any long-term contract.
Under the PCM, income is generally reported in installments as work is
performed, and expenses are generally deducted in the taxable year
incurred. However, taxpayers with contracts that meet the definition of
a ``home construction contract,'' under section 460(e)(4), are not
required to use the PCM for those contracts and may, instead, use an
exempt method. Exempt methods include the completed contract method
(CCM) and the accrual method. Under the CCM, for example, a taxpayer
generally takes into account the entire gross contract price and all
incurred allocable contract costs in the taxable year the taxpayer
completes the contract. Treasury and the IRS believe that amended rules
are needed to reduce uncertainty and controversy, including litigation,
regarding when a contract qualifies as a ``home construction contract''
and when the income and allocable deductions are taken into account
under the CCM. On August 4, 2008, Treasury and the IRS published
proposed regulations on the types of
[[Page 77853]]
contracts that are eligible for the home construction contract
exemption. The preamble to those regulations stated that Treasury and
the IRS expected to propose additional rules specific to home
construction contracts accounted for using the CCM. After considering
comments received and the need for additional and clearer rules to
reduce ongoing uncertainty and controversy, Treasury and the IRS have
determined that it would be beneficial to taxpayers to present all of
the proposed changes to the current regulations in a single document.
Treasury and the IRS plan to withdraw the 2008 proposed regulations and
replace them with new, more comprehensive proposed regulations.
Research Expenditures. Section 41 of the Code provides a credit
against taxable income for certain expenses paid or incurred in
conducting research activities. To assist in resolving areas of
controversy and uncertainty with respect to research expenses, Treasury
and the IRS plan to issue final regulations with respect to the
definition and credit eligibility of expenditures for internal use
software.
Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment
Credit Property. Section 50(d)(5) of the Code provides that, for
purposes of the investment credit, rules similar to former section
48(d) (as in effect prior to the enactment of Revenue Reconciliation
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)) apply. Former section 48(d)(5)(B) of
the Code generally provides that when a lessor of investment credit
property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property,
the lessee of the property must include an applicable amount in gross
income. Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations to address how
the section 50(d)(5) income-inclusion rules operate when a partnership
is the lessee.
Domestic Production Activities Income. Section 199 of the Code
provides a deduction for certain income attributable to domestic
production activities. To assist in resolving areas of controversy and
uncertainty with respect to the eligibility of income from online
computer software, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations
regarding the application of section 199 to online computer software.
Consistent Basis Reporting between Estate and Person Acquiring
Property from Decedent. On July 31, 2015, the President of the United
States signed H.R. 3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health
Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (Act) (P.L. 114-41), into law.
Section 2004 of the Act added new Code sections 1014(f), 6035, and
6662(k). Section 1014(f) provides rules requiring that the basis of
certain property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the estate
tax value of the property. Section 6035 requires executors who are
required to file a return under section 6018(a) of the Code (and other
persons required to file a return under section 6018(b)) after July 31,
2015, to furnish statements with the IRS and certain estate
beneficiaries providing information regarding the value of certain
property acquired from a decedent. Section 6662(k) provides a penalty
for certain recipients of property acquired from an estate required to
file a return after July 31, 2015, who do not report a basis that is
consistent with the value determined under section 1014(f) when the
property is sold (or deemed sold). On August 21, 2015, Notice 2015-57
was issued. This notice delayed the due date for any statements
required by section 6035 to February 29, 2016. The IRS is in the
process of issuing a form, a schedule, and instructions thereto to
facilitate the reporting required by section 6035. It is expected these
documents will be available in draft form for taxpayers' use prior to
February 29, 2016. Treasury and the IRS will issue proposed regulations
providing guidance under sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k) within 18
months of July 31, 2015.
Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The
arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under section 148
of the Code generally limit issuers from investing bond proceeds in
higher-yielding investments. On September 16, 2013, Treasury and the
IRS published proposed regulations (78 FR 56842) to address selected
current issues involving the arbitrage investment restrictions,
including guidance on the issue price definition used in the
computation of bond yield, working capital financings, grants,
investment valuation, modifications, terminations of qualified hedging
transactions, and selected other issues. On June 24, 2015, Treasury and
the IRS published proposed regulations (80 FR 36301) that revise the
2013 guidance on the issue price definition. Treasury and the IRS plan
to finalize the proposed regulations on the arbitrage investment
restrictions, including the issue price definition used in the
computation of bond yield.
Guidance on the Definition of Political Subdivision for Tax-Exempt,
Tax-Credit, and Direct-Pay Bonds. A political subdivision may be a
valid issuer of tax-exempt, tax-credit, and direct-pay bonds. Concerns
have been raised about what is required for an entity to be a political
subdivision. Treasury and the IRS plan to provide additional guidance
under section 103 of the Code for determining when an entity is a
political subdivision.
Contingent Notional Principal Contract Regulations. Notice 2001-44
(2001-2 CB 77) outlined four possible approaches for recognizing
nonperiodic payments made or received on a notional principal contract
(NPC) when the contract includes a nonperiodic payment that is
contingent in fact or in amount. The Notice solicited further comments
and information on the treatment of such payments. After considering
the comments received in response to Notice 2001-44, Treasury and the
IRS published proposed regulations (69 FR 8886) (the 2004 proposed
regulations) that would amend section 1.446-3 and provide additional
rules regarding the timing and character of income, deduction, gain, or
loss with respect to such nonperiodic payments, including termination
payments. On December 7, 2007, Treasury and the IRS released Notice
2008-2 requesting comments and information with respect to transactions
frequently referred to as prepaid forward contracts. On May 8, 2015,
Treasury and the IRS published temporary and proposed regulations (80
FR 26437) relating to the treatment of nonperiodic payments. Treasury
and the IRS plan to finalize the temporary regulations and to re-
propose regulations to address issues relating to the timing and
character of nonperiodic contingent payments on NPCs, including
termination payments and payments on prepaid forward contracts.
Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A number of tax issues relating
to the amount, character, and timing of income, expense, gain, or loss
on distressed debt remain unresolved. During fiscal year 2016, Treasury
and the IRS plan to address certain of these issues in published
guidance.
Definition of Real Property and Qualifying Income for REIT
Purposes. A taxpayer must satisfy certain asset and income requirements
to qualify as a real estate investment trust (REIT) under section 856
of the Code. REITs have sought to invest in various types of assets
that are not directly addressed by the current regulations or other
published guidance. On May 14, 2014, Treasury and the IRS published
proposed regulations (79 FR 27508) to update and clarify the definition
of real property for REIT qualification purposes, including guidance
addressing whether a component of a larger item is tested on its own or
only as part of the larger item, the scope of the asset to be tested,
and whether certain intangible assets qualify as real property.
Treasury and the IRS plan to
[[Page 77854]]
finalize the proposed regulations in the fiscal year. Treasury and the
IRS also plan to provide guidance clarifying the definition of income
for purposes of section 856.
Corporate Spin-offs and Split-offs. Section 355 and related
provisions of the Code allow for the tax-free distribution of stock or
securities of a controlled corporation if certain requirements are met.
For example, the distributing corporation must distribute a controlling
interest in the controlled corporation, and both the distributing and
controlled corporations must be engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business immediately after the distribution. Treasury and the
IRS intend to provide guidance on the qualification of a distribution
for tax-free treatment under section 355, including (1) regulations
that address when a corporation is treated as engaged in an active
trade or business, and (2) final regulations that define predecessor or
successor corporation for purposes of the exception to tax-free
treatment under section 355(e). Treasury and the IRS also intend to
provide guidance relating to the tax treatment of other transactions
undertaken as part of a plan that includes a distribution of stock or
securities of a controlled corporation, such as changes to the voting
power of the controlled corporation's stock in anticipation of the
distribution, the issuance of debt of the distributing corporation and
retirement of such debt using stock or securities of the controlled
corporation, and the transfer of cash or property between a
distributing or controlled corporation and its shareholder(s) in
connection with the distribution.
Disguised Payments for Services. Section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Code
provides that if a partner performs services for a partnership and
receives a related direct or indirect allocation and distribution, and
the performance of services and the allocation and distribution, when
viewed together, are properly characterized as a transaction occurring
between the partnership and a partner acting other than in its capacity
as a partner, the transfer will be treated as occurring between the
partnership and one who is not a partner. Treasury and the IRS
published proposed regulations on July 23, 2015, to provide guidance on
when an arrangement that is purported to be a distributive share under
section 704(b) of the Code will be recharacterized as a disguised
payment for services under section 707(a)(2)(A). The proposed
regulations also provide for modifications to the regulations governing
guaranteed payments under section 707(c) to make those regulations
consistent with the proposed regulations under section 707(a)(2)(A).
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal
year 2016.
Transfers of Property to Partnerships with Related Foreign
Partners. Section 721(c) of the Code provides authority to issue
regulations that prevent the use of a partnership to shift gain to a
foreign person. Treasury and the IRS exercised this authority on August
6, 2015, by issuing Notice 2015-54. The notice denies nonrecognition
treatment to certain contributions by U.S. persons to partnerships that
have foreign partners related to the transferor, unless conditions that
preserve U.S. taxing nexus with respect to the built-in gain in the
transferred property are met. The notice also addresses the
consequences under section 482 of the Code of controlled transactions
involving partnerships. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue the
regulations described in the notice in this fiscal year.
Country-by-Country Reporting. This fiscal year, pursuant to
authority granted under sections 6011, 6012, 6031, and 6038 of the
Code, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations requiring
reporting of country-by-country information by large U.S. multinational
enterprises (MNEs). The regulations will require those MNEs to report
income, earnings, taxes paid, and certain economic activity for each
country in which the MNE group conducts business, consistent with a
template released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) as part of its report ``Guidance on Transfer Pricing
Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting.'' The information will
be used for transfer pricing risk assessment.
Currency. On September 6, 2006, Treasury and the IRS published a
notice of proposed rulemaking under section 987 of the Code that
proposes rules for translating a section 987 qualified business unit's
income or loss into the taxpayer's functional currency for each taxable
year, as well as for determining the amount of section 987 currency
gain or loss that must be recognized when a section 987 qualified
business unit makes a remittance. Treasury and the IRS expect to
finalize the proposed regulations in this fiscal year.
Disguised Sale and Allocation of Liabilities. A contribution of
property by a partner to a partnership may be recharacterized as a sale
under section 707(a)(2)(B) of the Code if the partnership distributes
to the contributing partner cash or other property that is, in
substance, consideration for the contribution. The allocation of
partnership liabilities to the partners under section 752 of the Code
may impact the determination of whether a disguised sale has occurred
and whether gain is otherwise recognized upon a distribution. Treasury
and the IRS published proposed regulations on January 30, 2014, to
address certain issues that arise in the disguised sale context and
other issues regarding the partners' shares of partnership liabilities.
Treasury and the IRS are considering comments on the proposed
regulations and expect to issue regulations on this issue in fiscal
year 2016.
Certain Partnership Distributions Treated as Sales or Exchanges. In
1954, Congress enacted section 751 to prevent the use of a partnership
to convert potential ordinary income into capital gain. In 1956,
Treasury and the IRS issued regulations implementing section 751 of the
Code. The current regulations, however, do not always achieve the
purpose of the statute. In 2006, Treasury and the IRS published Notice
2006-14 (2006-1 CB 498) to propose and solicit alternative approaches
to section 751 that better achieve the purpose of the statute while
providing greater simplicity. Treasury and the IRS published proposed
regulations following up on Notice 2006-14 on November 3, 2014. These
regulations were intended to provide guidance on determining a
partner's interest in a partnership's section 751 property and how a
partnership recognizes income required by section 751. Treasury and the
IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal year 2016.
Penalties and Limitation Periods. Congress amended several penalty
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code in the past several years.
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish a number of guidance projects in
fiscal year 2016 addressing these penalty provisions. Specifically,
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish final regulations under section
6708 of the Code regarding the penalty for failure to make available
upon request a list of advisees that is required to be maintained under
section 6112 of the Code. The proposed regulations were published on
March 8, 2013. Treasury and the IRS also intend to publish proposed
regulations under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6664 of the Code to provide
further guidance on the circumstances under which a taxpayer could be
subject to the accuracy related penalty on underpayments or reportable
transaction understatements and the reasonable cause exception.
[[Page 77855]]
Inversion Transactions. On September 22, 2014, Treasury and the IRS
issued Notice 2014-52, addressing the application of sections 7874 and
367 of the Code to inversions, as well as certain tax avoidance
transactions that are commonly undertaken after an inversion
transaction. In this fiscal year, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue
regulations implementing the rules described in Notice 2014-52. Also in
this fiscal year, and as announced in Notice 2014-52, Treasury and the
IRS expect to issue additional guidance to further limit inversion
transactions that are contrary to the purposes of section 7874 and the
benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance transactions.
Information Reporting for Foreign Accounts of U.S. Persons. In
March 2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) was added to subtitle A
of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Hiring Incentives to
Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111-147). Chapter 4 was
enacted to address concerns with offshore tax evasion by U.S. citizens
and residents and generally requires foreign financial institutions
(FFIs) to enter into an agreement (FFI Agreement) with the IRS to
report information regarding financial accounts of U.S. persons and
certain foreign entities with significant U.S. ownership. An FFI that
does not enter into an FFI Agreement, or that is not otherwise deemed
compliant with FATCA, generally will be subject to a withholding tax on
the gross amount of certain payments from U.S. sources. Treasury and
the IRS have issued proposed, temporary, and final regulations under
chapter 4, followed by proposed and temporary regulations modifying
certain provisions of the final regulations; proposed and temporary
regulations under chapters 3 and 61, and section 3406, to coordinate
with those chapter 4 regulations; as well as implementing revenue
procedures and other guidance. Treasury and the IRS expect to issue
further guidance with respect to FATCA and related provisions in this
fiscal year, including finalizing of the aforementioned chapter 3, 4
and 61 regulations and proposed regulations covering the compliance
requirement of entities acting as sponsoring entities on behalf of
certain foreign entities.
Foreign Tax Credits and Covered Asset Acquisitions. Section 901(m)
of the Code limits the availability of foreign tax credits in certain
cases in which U.S. tax law and foreign tax law provide different rules
for recognizing income and gain. In 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued
two notices providing guidance under section 901(m) regarding the
treatment of gains and losses from dispositions. In this fiscal year,
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations to implement these
notices, and also provide substantial additional guidance under section
901(m).
Transfers of Property to Foreign Corporations. Section 367 of the
Code provides special rules to address the transfer of property,
including intangible property, by U.S. persons to foreign corporations
in certain nonrecognition transactions. Under existing temporary
regulations issued in 1986, favorable treatment is afforded to the
outbound transfer of ``foreign goodwill and going concern value,''
which has created incentives for taxpayers to categorize transfers of
high-value intangible property as such. On September 14, 2015, Treasury
and the IRS released proposed regulations that would eliminate that
favorable treatment. Treasury and the IRS released on the same day
temporary and proposed regulations under section 482 that clarify the
coordination of the application of the transfer pricing rules in
conjunction with other provisions, including section 367. Treasury and
the IRS intend to finalize the proposed section 367 regulations and the
temporary and proposed section 482 regulations in this fiscal year.
Section 501(c) Guidance. After reviewing over 160,000 comments
submitted on the proposed regulations under section 501(c)(4) published
in fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue revised
proposed regulations that provide guidance under section 501(c)
relating to limitations on political campaign activities of certain
tax-exempt organizations.
Guidance on Multiemployer Benefit Suspensions. The Multiemployer
Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) enacted new rules for multiemployer
plans that are projected to have insufficient funds, at some point in
the future, to pay the full plan benefits to which individuals will be
entitled. MPRA permits the sponsor of such a plan to reduce the pension
benefits payable to plan participants and beneficiaries if certain
conditions are satisfied, after submitting an application to Treasury
for approval and conducting a participant vote. Two sets of proposed
and temporary regulations, each set covering different aspects of the
legislation, have been published, as well as a revenue procedure
concerning the application process. A public hearing on the first set
of regulations has been held and over 700 comments received. Treasury
and the IRS plan to finalize both sets of regulations in this fiscal
year.
ABLE Account guidance. On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The
Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of
2014, adding section 529A to the Code to enable states to create
qualified ABLE programs under which disabled individuals may establish
a tax-advantaged account to pay for disability-related expenses. To be
eligible to establish an ABLE account, the individual must have become
disabled prior to age 26. As required by the statute, Treasury and the
IRS on June 19, 2015, published proposed regulations implementing the
provision. States may rely on the proposed regulations for establishing
a qualified ABLE program. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the
regulations during the 2016 fiscal year, taking into account all
comments received.
Guidance Responding to the SEC's Money Market Reform Rule. On July
23, 2014, the SEC adopted a final rule to reduce the systemic risk that
money market funds present to the national economy. Later that day,
Treasury and the IRS issued simplifying guidance, including proposed
regulations (79 FR 43694), designed to ameliorate the tax compliance
difficulties that the SEC rule would otherwise pose for certain money
market funds and their shareholders. In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and
the IRS intend to finalize the proposed regulations.
Guidance Relating to Publicly Traded Partnerships. Section 7704 of
the Code provides that a partnership whose interests are traded on
either an established securities market or on a secondary market (a
``publicly traded partnership'') is generally treated as a corporation
for Federal tax purposes. However, section 7704(c) permits publicly
traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for Federal tax
purposes if 90 percent or more of partnership income consists of
``qualifying income.'' Section 7704(d) provides that income is
generally qualifying income if it is passive income or is derived from
exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining,
transportation, or marketing of a mineral or natural resource. Treasury
and the IRS issued proposed regulations in 2015 to provide guidance and
reduce uncertainty regarding the scope of the natural resource
exception. After considering comments on the proposed regulations,
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations in fiscal year
2016.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
[[Page 77856]]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit
programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who
served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely
confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress
relating to programs for veterans and their families. VA's major
regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice,
and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three
VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans
Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The
primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide
high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and
their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful
Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
VA Regulatory Priorities
VA's main regulatory priority is to implement the Veterans Access,
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which has been amended by
Congress in 2015 (Public Laws 114-19 and 114-41). The purpose of the
law is to establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical
services through non-VA health care providers to veterans who cannot be
seen within VA's wait time goals, live far from any VA medical
facility, or would face undue hardship travelling to a VA medical
facility.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found
at: http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_VA_OIRA_Status_Report_201507.pdf.
VA's most recent report on its retrospective review of regulations
can be found at: http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_RegRevPlan20110810.docx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduce
RIN Title burdens on small
businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2900-AP50.................. Revise and No.
Streamline VA
Acquisition
Regulation to
Adhere to
Federal
Acquisition.
2900-AO53.................. Fiduciary No.
Activities.
Multiple RINs.............. VA Schedule for No.
Rating
Disabilities
(with specific
body system).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
FY 2016 Regulatory Plan
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board) is an independent federal agency established by section
502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The Access Board is
responsible for developing accessibility guidelines and standards under
various laws to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access
to and use of buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles,
information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic
equipment. Other federal agencies adopt the accessibility guidelines
and standards issued by the Access Board as mandatory requirements for
entities under their jurisdiction.
This plan highlights four rulemaking priorities for the Access
Board in FY 2016: (A) Information and Communication Technology
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; (C)
Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; and (D)
Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-
of-Way. The guidelines and standards would enable individuals with
disabilities to achieve greater participation in our society,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, and would promote
our national values of equity, human dignity, and fairness, the
benefits of which are difficult to quantify.
The rulemakings are summarized below.
A. Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Standards and
Guidelines (RIN: 3014-AA37).
This rulemaking would update in a single document the accessibility
standards for electronic and information technology covered by section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d)
(Section 508), and the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508
requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and
each appropriate federal department or agency to revise their
procurement policies and directives no later than 6 months after the
Access Board's publication of standards. The FAR Council has
incorporated the accessibility standards for electronic and information
technology in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1).
Under section 255, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
responsible for issuing implementing regulations and enforcing section
255. The FCC has promulgated enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 and
7) implementing section 255 that are consistent with the Access Board's
accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and
[[Page 77857]]
customer premises equipment. The Access Board's 2010 ANPRM included a
proposal to amend section 220 of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), but, based on public comments, the
ADAAG proposal is no longer included in this rulemaking and will be
pursued separately at a later date.
A.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the Electronic and
Information Technology Accessibility Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80500,
December 21, 2000), and the Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment in 1998 (63 FR 5608, February 3, 1998). Since the standards
and the guidelines were issued, technology has evolved and changed.
Telecommunications products and electronic and information technology
products have converged. For example, smartphones can perform many of
the same functions as computers. Real time text technologies and video
relay services are replacing TTY's (text telephones). The Access Board
is updating the standards and guidelines together to address changes in
technology and to make them consistent.
A.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 508 and Section 255
require the Access Board to develop accessibility standards for
electronic and information technology and accessibility guidelines for
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and to
periodically review and update the standards and guidelines to reflect
technological advances and changes.
Section 508 requires that when developing, procuring, maintaining,
or using electronic and information technology, each federal department
or agency must ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the
department or agency, that electronic and information technology
(regardless of the type of medium) allows individuals with disabilities
to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to
the access and use of the information and data by others without
disabilities. Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers to
ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment are designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is readily
achievable to do so.
A.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory
Committee to recommend changes to the existing standards and
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives from industry,
disability groups, and government agencies from the U.S. the European
Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Recognizing the importance of
standardization across markets worldwide, the advisory committee
coordinated its work with standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and
abroad, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The Access Board
expects that the Information and Communication Technology Standards and
Guidelines will have international influences. The Access Board first
published Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in the
Federal Register in 2010 and 2011 requesting public comments on draft
updates to the standards and guidelines (75 FR 13457, March 22, 2010;
and 76 FR 76640, December 8, 2011). The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10880). The comment period
closed on May 28, 2015. The proposed rule, comments on the proposed
rule, records and transcripts from three public hearings, and the
preliminary regulatory impact analysis are available in the rulemaking
docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2015-0002.
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in
response to the NPRM.
A.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Access Board worked with a
contractor to assess costs and benefits and prepare a preliminary
regulatory impact assessment to accompany the NPRM. Baseline cost
estimates of complying with Section 508 and Section 255 are made, and
incremental costs due to the revised or new requirements are estimated
for federal agencies and telecommunications equipment manufacturers.
Anticipated benefits are also numerous, including hard-to quantify
benefits such as increased ability for people with disabilities to
obtain information and conduct transactions electronically. The Access
Board will prepare a final regulatory impact assessment to accompany
the final rule, which will incorporate information received from
commenters to the NPRM.
B. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for
Transportation Vehicles (RIN: 3014-AA38).
This rulemaking would update the accessibility guidelines for
buses, over-the-road buses, and vans covered by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). The accessibility guidelines for other
transportation vehicles covered by the ADA, including vehicles operated
in fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail,
high speed rail and intercity rail) would be updated in a future
rulemaking. The guidelines ensure that transportation vehicles covered
by the ADA are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued
enforceable standards (49 CFR part 37) that apply to the acquisition of
new, used, and remanufactured transportation vehicles, and the
remanufacture of existing transportation vehicles covered by the ADA.
DOT is expected to update its standards in a separate rulemaking to be
consistent with the updated guidelines.
B.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles in 1991, and
amended the guidelines in 1998 to include additional requirements for
over-the-road buses. Level boarding bus systems were introduced in the
U.S. after the 1991 guidelines were issued. We are revising the 1991
guidelines to include new requirements for level boarding bus systems,
automated stop and route announcements, and other changes.
B.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title II of the ADA applies to
state and local governments and title III of the ADA applies to places
of public accommodation operated by private entities. The ADA covers
designated public transportation services provided by state and local
governments and specified public transportation services provided by
private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. (See 42
U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.) Bus rapid transit systems, including
level boarding bus systems, that provide public transportation
services, are covered by the ADA.
The Access Board is required by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
to establish and maintain guidelines for the accessibility standards
adopted by DOT for transportation vehicles acquired or manufactured by
entities covered by the ADA. Compliance with the new guidelines is not
required until DOT revises its accessibility standards for
transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by entities covered
by the ADA to be consistent with the new guidelines.
B.3. Alternatives: The Access Board issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to revise the 1991 guidelines for buses, over-the-road
buses, and vans in 2010
[[Page 77858]]
(75 FR 43748, July 26, 2010). The proposed rule, comments on the
proposed rule, transcripts from public hearings and an information
meeting, and other related documents are available in the rulemaking
docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2010-0004.
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in
response to the NPRM.
B.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM,
the Access Board published a report entitled ``Cost Estimates for
Automated Stop and Route Announcements'' (July 2010), which is
available on the agency Web site (www.access-board.gov) and the
rulemaking docket. A final regulatory assessment will be prepared to
accompany the final rule. The final regulatory assessment will evaluate
estimated incremental costs for new or revised requirements for buses,
over-the-road buses, and vans in the final rule, as well as provide a
description of qualitative benefits. It is anticipated that this rule
will improve access to wheeled transportation vehicles for persons who
have mobility disabilities, persons who have difficulty hearing or are
deaf, and persons who have difficulty seeing or are blind to make
better use of transportation services.
C. Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards (RIN: 3014-
AA40).
The Access Board plans to issue a final rule establishing
accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment used in or in
conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' offices, clinics,
emergency rooms, and hospitals. The standards will contain minimum
technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment,
including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales,
mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment used by health care
providers for diagnostic purposes are accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. The Access Board published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register in 2012 (77 FR 6916,
February 9, 2012).
C.1. Statement of Need: A national survey of a diverse sample of
individuals with a wide range of disabilities, including mobility and
sensory disabilities, showed that the respondents had difficulty
getting on and off examination tables and chairs, radiology equipment
and weight scales, and experienced problems with physical comfort,
safety and communication. Focus group studies of individuals with
disabilities also provided information on barriers that affect the
accessibility and usability of various types of medical diagnostic
equipment. The national survey and focus group studies are discussed in
the NPRM.
C.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 4203 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 570)
amended title V of the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes rights and
protections for individuals with disabilities, by adding section 510 to
the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794f) (Section 510). Section 510
requires the Access Board, in consultation with the Commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to develop standards that contain
minimum technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment
used in or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians'
offices, clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals are accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities.
Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the
standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires health
care providers to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal
access to their health care services and facilities. The U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to
implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and enforcing the law.
The NPRM discusses DOJ activities related to health care providers and
medical diagnostic equipment.
C.3. Alternatives: The Access Board worked with the FDA and DOJ in
developing the standards. The Access Board considered the Association
for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's ANSI/AAMI HE 75:2009,
``Human factors engineering-Design of medical devices,'' which includes
recommended practices to provide accessibility for individuals with
disabilities. The Access Board also established a Medical Diagnostic
Equipment Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee that included
representatives from the disability community and manufacturers of
medical diagnostic equipment to make recommendations on issues raised
in public comments and responses to questions in the NPRM. The Advisory
Committee report, completed in December 2013, is available at http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/health-care/about-this-rulemaking/advisory-committee-final-report. The final rule will be
based recommendations of the advisory committee, and will also address
and incorporate comments submitted in response to the NPRM.
C.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM,
the Access Board published a preliminary regulatory assessment of the
proposed MDE standards. The Access Board is working on a final
regulatory assessment, which will evaluate the incremental costs and
benefits of the final rule from quantitative and qualitative
perspectives as information permits. It is anticipated that the final
MDE standards will address many of the barriers that have been
identified as affecting the accessibility and usability of diagnostic
equipment by individuals with disabilities. The standards aim to
facilitate independent transfers by individuals with disabilities onto
and off of diagnostic equipment, and enable them to maintain their
independence, confidence, and dignity, lessening the need for health
care personnel to assist individuals with disabilities when
transferring on and off of diagnostic equipment. The standards also are
expected to improve the quality of health care for individuals with
disabilities and ensure that they receive examinations, diagnostic
procedures, and other health care services equivalent to those received
by individuals without disabilities.
D. Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public
Right-of-Way (RIN: 3014-AA26).
The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure
that sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way are
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consolidated this rulemaking
with RIN 3014-AA41; accessibility guidelines for shared use paths
(which are multi-use paths designed primarily for use by bicyclists and
pedestrians--including persons with disabilities--for transportation
and recreation purposes). The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and other federal agencies are expected
to adopt the accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the
public right-of way and for shared use paths, as enforceable standards
in separate rulemakings for the construction and alteration of
facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
D.1. Statement of Need: While the Access Board has issued
accessibility guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration
of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with
[[Page 77859]]
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (36 CFR
part 1191), these guidelines were developed primarily for buildings and
facilities on sites. Some of the provisions in these guidelines can be
readily applied to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way
such as curb ramps. However, other provisions need to be adapted or new
provisions developed for pedestrian facilities that are built in the
public right-of-way as well as shared use paths.
D.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 502 (b)(3) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 792 (b)(3), requires
the Access Board to establish and maintain minimum guidelines for the
standards issued by other agencies pursuant to the ADA and ABA. In
addition, section 504 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12204, required the Access
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities
covered by that law.
D.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a Public Rights-of-
Way Access Advisory Committee to make recommendations for the
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives of state and local
government agencies responsible for constructing facilities in the
public right-of-way, transportation engineers, disability groups, and
bicycling and pedestrian organizations. The Access Board released two
drafts of the guidelines for public comment, an NPRM (76 FR 44664, July
11, 2011) based on the advisory committee report and public comments on
the draft guidelines, and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) regarding shared use paths (78 FR 10110, February 13, 2013).
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in
response to the NPRM and SNPRM.
D.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM,
the Access Board published a preliminary regulatory assessment of the
proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the
public right-of-way, which is available in the rulemaking docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2011-0004. The Access
Board identified four provisions in the NPRM that were expected to have
more than minimal monetary impacts on state and local governments.
Three of these four requirements are related to: (1) Detectable warning
surfaces on newly constructed and altered curb ramps and blended
transitions at pedestrian street crossings; (2) accessible pedestrian
signals and pushbuttons when pedestrian signals are newly installed or
replaced at signalized intersections; and (3) pedestrian activated
signals at roundabouts with multi-lane pedestrian crossings. In
addition, the fourth requirement for provision of a 2 percent maximum
cross slope on pedestrian access routes within pedestrian street
crossings with yield or stop control was estimated to have more than
minimal monetary impacts on state and local governments when
constructing roadways with pedestrian crossings in hilly areas. The
NPRM included questions requesting information to assess the costs and
benefits of these provisions, as well as other provisions that may have
cost impacts. The Access Board will prepare a final regulatory impact
assessment to accompany the final rule based on information provided in
response to questions in the NPRM and other sources.
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Priorities
Overview
For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has worked to protect people's health and the environment. By
taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the
most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA and its federal, state,
local, and community partners have made important progress to address
pollution where people live, work, play, and learn. From cleaning up
contaminated waste sites to reducing greenhouse gases, mercury and
other air emissions, to investing in water and wastewater treatment,
the American people have seen and felt tangible benefits to their
health and surroundings. Efforts to reduce air pollution alone have
produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in the United
States.
To keep up this momentum in the coming year, EPA will use
regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs,
technical and compliance assistance and tools, research and educational
initiatives to address the priorities set forth in EPA's Strategic
Plan:
Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
Protecting America's Waters
Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable
Development
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing
Laws and Assuring Compliance
All of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to
science, law and transparency.
Highlights of EPA'S Regulatory Plan
EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the
environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution
that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use and the
communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on
some of our most important upcoming regulatory actions. As always, our
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum
of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
Guiding Priorities
The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity
in both what we do and how we do it. To guide the agency's efforts, the
Agency has established several guiding priorities. These priorities are
enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and
future objectives for each.
1. Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where
appropriate and warranted. Addressing climate change calls for
coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and develop
and deploy new, cleaner technologies. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will
continue to develop greenhouse gas standards for both mobile and
stationary sources.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. As part of the
President's Climate Action Plan, in July 2015, the EPA promulgated the
Clean Power Plan final rules setting guidelines for states to follow in
reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants, as well as
finalizing emission standards for new plants. At the same time, EPA
proposed Model Rules, to be finalized in 2016, to help the states
develop plans that adequately implement the carbon-reduction
guidelines. The July 2015 proposal also included a Federal Plan that
will serve as a backstop in cases where states do not adequately
implement the guidelines. By 2030 carbon emissions from existing plants
are estimated to be reduced by 32% from 2005 levels.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles GHG Emission Standards. In 2011, in cooperation
with the Department of Transportation (DOT), EPA issued the first-ever
[[Page 77860]]
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles for model years 2014-2018.
On June 19, 2015, EPA and DOT proposed a second set of standards to
further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from a
wide range of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to the largest pickup
trucks and vans and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses. These
new standards will be finalized in 2016. This action is another
important component of the President's Climate Action Plan.
Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress,
millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of
the national air pollution standards. This year's regulatory plan
describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for lead. It also includes a rule to reduce state-to-
state atmospheric transport of pollutants that contribute to
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.
2. Protecting America's Waters
Despite considerable progress, many of America's waters remain
imperiled. Water quality protection programs face complex challenges,
from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and
drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional
and innovative strategies.
3. Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
Just as today's economy is vastly different from that of 40 years
before, EPA's regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress
that has already been made in environmental protection and to
incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to provide
for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and
effectively.
Establishing User Fees for the Use of RCRA Manifests. The e-
Manifest Final Rule of February 7, 2014 codified certain provisions of
the ``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act'' (or the
Act), which directed the EPA to adopt a regulation that authorized the
use of electronic manifests to track hazardous waste shipments
nationwide. The Act also instructed the EPA to develop a user-fee-
funded e-Manifest system. Since the Act grants broad discretion to the
EPA to determine the fees and gives the Agency authority to collect
such fees for both electronic manifests and any paper manifests that
continue in use, the EPA plans to issue a rulemaking to establish the
appropriate electronic and paper manifest fees. The initial fees, to be
established in the final rule, are expected to cover the operation and
maintenance costs for the system, as well as the costs associated with
the development of the system. The EPA plans to also announce in the
final rule the date on which the system will be implemented and
available to users.
Once the national e-Manifest system becomes available, hazardous
waste handlers will be able to complete, sign, transmit, and store
electronic manifests through the national IT system, or they can elect
to continue tracking the hazardous waste under the paper manifest
system. Further, waste handlers that currently submit manifests to the
states will no longer be required to do so, unless required by the
state, as the EPA will collect both the remaining paper manifest copies
and electronic manifests in the national system and will disseminate
the manifest data to those States that want it.
CERCLA Section 108(b)--Hard Rock Mining. Section 108(b) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain authorities
concerning financial responsibility requirements. The Agency has
identified classes of facilities within the Hard Rock mining industry
as those for which financial responsibility requirements will be first
developed. EPA's 108(b) rules will address the degree and duration of
risks associated with aspects of hazardous substance management at hard
rock mining and mineral processing facilities. These regulations will
help ensure that businesses make financial arrangements to address
risks from hazardous substances at their sites, and encourage
businesses to improve their management of hazardous substances.
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations
under Clean Air Act. On August 1, 2013, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and
Security (E.O. 13650 or the E.O.). The E.O. was prompted by major
chemical accidents, such as the explosion at the West Fertilizer
facility in West, Texas on April 17, 2013. E.O. 13650 directs the
federal government to carry out a number of tasks whose overall aim is
to prevent chemical accidents. Among the tasks discussed, the E.O.
directs agencies to consider possible changes to existing chemical
safety regulations, such as the EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP)
regulation (40 CFR part 68).
Both EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
had previously issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic chemical
accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and worker
fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other community
impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard
(29 CFR part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled the RMP regulation after
OSHA's PSM standard and published the RMP rule in two stages--a list of
regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994; and the RMP
final regulation, containing risk management requirements, in 1996.
Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent,
or minimize the consequences of, accidental chemical releases to
workers and the community.
The EPA is considering modifications to the current RMP regulations
in order to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental
releases, (2) improve emergency response when those releases occur, and
(2) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an
effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
4. Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
One of EPA's highest priorities is to make significant progress in
assuring the safety of chemicals. Using sound science as a compass, EPA
protects individuals, families, and the environment from potential
risks of pesticides and other chemicals. In its implementation of these
programs, EPA uses several different statutory authorities, including
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well as
collaborative and voluntary activities. In FY 2016, the Agency will
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and
highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program Under TSCA. As part of
EPA's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to
take a range of identified regulatory actions for certain chemicals and
assess other chemicals to determine if risk reduction action is needed
to address potential concerns. After completing risk assessments and
identifying concerns related to several specific uses of
Trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, and n-methylpyrrolidone
(NMP), EPA is
[[Page 77861]]
initiating action under TSCA section 6 to address these risks and
determine what requirements may be necessary to adequately protect the
public, workers, and the environment from unreasonable risk of exposure
to these chemicals.
Addressing Formaldehyde Used in Composite Wood Products. As
directed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
of 2010, EPA is developing a final regulation to address formaldehyde
emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density
fiberboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in
the United States.
Lead-based Paint Program. EPA is developing a final rule that would
implement several amendments to the EPA lead-based paint program that
would improve efficiencies and save resources for those involved. EPA
proposed changes in 2014 to the EPA lead-based paint program that
would, among other things, amend the renovation, repair and painting
rule by removing the requirement for hands-on refresher training for
renovators so that they can take the refresher course online and
without the need to travel to a training facility for the hands-on
portion. EPA also proposed to amend the lead-based paint abatement
program by removing the requirement for firms, training providers and
individuals to apply for and be certified or accredited in each EPA-
administered jurisdiction where they work (i.e., state, tribe or
territory where EPA runs the abatement program). In addition, as
directed by TSCA section 402(c)(3), EPA is developing a proposed rule
to address renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based
paint hazards in pre-1978 public buildings and commercial buildings.
EPA previously issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards
created by these activities in target housing and child-occupied
facilities.
Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations. When enacted in 1978, TSCA
banned the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), except when uses would pose no
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA is
reassessing certain ongoing, authorized uses of PCBs that were
established by regulation in 1979, including the use, distribution in
commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric
equipment, to determine whether those authorized uses still meet TSCA's
``no unreasonable risk'' standard. EPA plans to propose the revocation
or revision of any PCBs use authorizations included in this
reassessment that no longer meet the TSCA standard.
Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection. As a result of extensive
stakeholder engagement and public meetings, EPA is acting to enhance
the pesticide worker safety program. EPA plans to issue final
amendments to the agricultural worker protection regulation that
strengthens protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide
handlers. The revisions will address key environmental justice concerns
for a population that may be disproportionately affected by pesticide
exposure. The final rule is expected to improve pesticide safety
training, use of personal protective equipment, and access to
decontamination supplies, and improve agricultural workers' ability to
protect themselves and their families from potential secondary exposure
to pesticides and pesticide residues. Other changes are intended to
bring hazard communications and respirator requirements more in line
with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and to
clarify current requirements to facilitate program implementation and
enforcement.
Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort
to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency also
proposed revisions to the existing regulation concerning the
certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides. This
proposed rule is intended to ensure that the federal certification
standards adequately protect applicators, the public and the
environment from potential risks associated with use of restricted use
pesticides. The proposed changes are intended to improve the competency
of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides, increase
protection for noncertified applicators of restricted use pesticides
operating under the direct supervision of a certified applicator
through enhanced pesticide safety training and standards for
supervision of noncertified applicators, and establish a minimum age
requirement for such noncertified applicators. Also, in keeping with
EPA's commitment to work more closely with tribal governments to
strengthen environmental protection in Indian Country, certain proposed
changes are intended to provide more practical options for establishing
certification programs in Indian Country.
Evaluating Pesticide Risks to Bees and Other Pollinators. As part
of the efforts outlined in the ``National Strategy to Promote the
Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,'' EPA is working to update
its pesticide data requirements to provide the Agency with data needed
to determine the potential exposure and effects of pesticides on bees
and other important non-target insect pollinators. Pollinator insects
are ecologically and economically important. Recognizing heightened
concerns for honey bees due to pollinator declines and that the science
has now evolved to where additional toxicity and exposure protocols are
available, EPA issued interim study guidance for bees in 2011. EPA
developed finalized guidance in 2014 on the conduct of exposure and
effect studies used to characterize the potential risk of pesticides to
bees. The development and implementation of updates data requirements
is intended to provide the information the Agency needs to evaluate
whether a proposed or existing use of a pesticide may have an
unreasonable adverse effect on these important insects and support
pesticide registration decisions under FIFRA.
5. Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and
Assuring Compliance
Today's pollution challenges require a modern approach to
compliance, taking advantage of new tools and approaches while
strengthening vigorous enforcement of environmental laws. Next
Generation Compliance is EPA's integrated strategy to do that, designed
to bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.
EPA's Next Generation Compliance consists of five interconnected
components, each designed to improve the effectiveness of our
compliance program:
Design regulations and permits that are easier to
implement, with a goal of improved compliance and environmental
outcomes.
Use and promote advanced emissions/pollutant detection
technology so that regulated entities, the government, and the public
can more easily see pollutant discharges, environmental conditions, and
noncompliance.
Shift toward electronic reporting to help make
environmental reporting more accurate, complete, and efficient while
helping EPA and co-regulators better manage information, improve
effectiveness and transparency.
Expand transparency by making information more accessible
to the public.
Develop and use innovative enforcement approaches (e.g.,
data analytics and targeting) to achieve more widespread compliance.
[[Page 77862]]
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following EPA
actions have been identified as associated with retrospective review
and analysis in the Agency's final plan for retrospective review of
regulations, or one of its subsequent updates. Some of the entries on
this list may not appear in The Regulatory Plan but appear in EPA's
semiannual regulatory agenda. These rulemakings can also be found on
Regulations.gov. EPA's final agency plan can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory
Rulemaking title Identifier No.
(RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators-- 2060-AP06
Amendments...........................................
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events-- 2060-AS02
Rule Revisions.......................................
Public Notice Provisions in CAA Permitting Programs... 2060-AS59
Regional Haze Regulations--Revision to SIP Submission 2060-AS55
Date and Requirements for Progress Reports...........
Title V Petitions Process Improvement Rulemaking...... 2060-AS61
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 2040-AF15
and Copper: Regulatory Revisions.....................
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2040-AF25
(NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule.........
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Group 2040-AF29
Regulation of Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compound
(VOCs)...............................................
Management Standards for Hazardous Waste 2050-AG39
Pharmaceuticals......................................
Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule.......... 2050-AG77
Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator 2050-AG70
Regulatory Program (Parts 261-265)...................
Revisions to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2050-AG75
Subtitle D Research, Demonstration & Development
Permit Rule..........................................
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators.... 2070-AJ20
Lead; Lead-based Paint Program; Amendment to 2070-AK02
Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation
Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training
Requirements.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregation of Benefits and Costs From Monetized Rules Reported in the Regulatory Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (millions $/ Costs (millions $/year) Net benefits (millions $/
year) --------------------------- year)
Rule Base year --------------------------- --------------------------
Low High Low High Low High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate = 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Emission Standards for New and Modified 2012 $200 $210 $150 $170 $35 $42
Sources..................................................
GHG Emissions and Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 2012 3,700 4,900 (5,660) (7,300) 9,400 12,300
Heavy-Duty Engines-Phase 2 *.............................
Model Trading Rules for GHG Emissions from EGUs 2012 3,564 8,249 2,546 1,426 1,018 6,823
Constructed Before 1-8-14; Amendments....................
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead.....................................................
GHG Endangerment Findings for Aircraft.................... 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0
RFS 2014-2016............................................. 2012 0 0 118 595 (118) (595)
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators........ 2012 21 22 50 50 (28) (28)
Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood 2012 21 50 75 84 (62) (25)
Products.................................................
Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the 2012 $0 $0 $0.04 $0.04 ($0.04) ($0.04)
Formaldehyde Standards...................................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Estimates................................... 2012 7,507 13,431 (2,721) (4,975) 10,245 18,517
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate = 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Emission Standards for New and Modified 2012 200 210 150 170 35 42
Sources..................................................
GHG Emissions and Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 2012 4,200 4,800 (6,000) (5,460) 10,100 10,200
Heavy-Duty Engines-Phase 2 *.............................
Model Trading Rules for GHG Emissions from EGUs 2012 3,463 7,842 2,546 1,426 1,120 6,416
Constructed Before 1-8-14; Amendments....................
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead.....................................................
GHG Endangerment Findings for Aircraft.................... 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0
RFS 2014-2016............................................. 2012 0 0 118 595 (118) (595)
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators........ 2012 21 22 50 50 (28) (28)
[[Page 77863]]
Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood 2012 21 50 75 84 (62) (25)
Products.................................................
Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the 2012 0 0 0.04 0.04 (0.04) (0.04)
Formaldehyde Standards...................................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Estimates................................... 2012 7,905 12,923 (3,061) (3,135) 11,046 16,010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In order to maintain consistency between the NHTSA's and EPA's analyses, the fuel savings values are treated as negative costs consistent with the
information presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rulemaking (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0243).
Burden Reduction
As described above, EPA continues to review its existing
regulations in an effort to achieve its mission in the most efficient
means possible. To this end, the Agency is committed to identifying
areas in its regulatory program where significant savings or
quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens might be achieved, as
outlined in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, while protecting public
health and our environment.
Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to
improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens
to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses'
participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small
entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Development and
Retrospective Review Tracker (http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/) at any
time. This Plan includes the following rules that may be of particular
interest to small entities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Identifier No.
Rulemaking title (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for 2070-AJ44
Composite Wood Products.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel 2060-AS16
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase
2.
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 2060-AS30
Standards for New and Modified Sources.
Financial Responsibility Requirements 2050-AG61
Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes
of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining
Industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Regulatory Cooperation Activities
EPA has considered international regulatory cooperation activities
as described in Executive Order 13609 and has identified the following
international activity that is anticipated to lead to a significant
regulation in the following year:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Identifier No.
Rulemaking title (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for 2070-AJ44
Composite Wood Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses
EPA has considered import and export streamlining activities as
described in Executive Order 13659 and identified the following
rulemaking activity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Identifier No.
Rulemaking title (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions 2050-AG77
Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA--AIR AND RADIATION (AR)
Proposed Rule Stage
104. Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 51.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would address Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements concerning the transport of air pollution across State
boundaries. It is the next step for the EPA to move forward with the
States to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This action will not address
the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Statement of Need: Interstate transport poses significant
challenges with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern United
States, and this ozone pollution transport presents public health and
welfare concerns.
Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority for this proposed
action is provided by the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the CAA provide the primary
statutory bases for this proposal. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also
known as the ``good neighbor provision,'' provides the basis for this
proposed action. It requires that each state SIP shall include
provisions sufficient to ``prohibit . . . any source or other type of
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in
amounts which will--(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in,
or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any
[NAAQS].''
Alternatives: Alternatives will be identified as the proposal is
developed.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed
as the proposal is developed.
Risks: Risks will be analyzed as the proposal is developed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15
Final Rule.......................... 08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500.
Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
[[Page 77864]]
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ozonetransportNAAQS.html.
Agency Contact: David Risley, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation, 6204M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9177, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS05
EPA--AR
105. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and
Modified Sources
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Consistent with the White House Methane Strategy and the
January 14, 2015, announcement of the EPA's approach to achieving
methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC) reductions from the oil
and natural gas sector, this action will finalize amendments to the
2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) for this sector. The
proposed rule published 9/18/15, included methane and VOC standards for
sources not covered by the 2012 Oil and Gas NSPS, such as completions
of hydraulically fractured oil wells, pneumatic pumps and fugitive
emissions at well sites and compressor stations. The proposal also
included methane standards for sources covered in the 2012 NSPS. In
addition, in response to the reconsideration petitions received for the
2012 NSPS and the 2013 amendments to the NSPS, this proposal addressed
the issues for which the EPA is granting reconsideration.
Statement of Need: This action finalizes amendments the new source
performance standards for the oil and natural gas source category by
setting standards for both methane and volatile organic compounds for
certain equipment, processes, and activities across this source
category that were not covered in the 2012 rules. This action responds
to the 2014 Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions
(the Methane Strategy). The Methane Strategy instructs the EPA to
complete regulations pertaining to the sources of methane in the oil
and gas sector by the end of 2016. Specifically, in January 2015, the
Administration announced a new goal to cut methane emissions from the
oil and gas sector. Additionally, this action finalizes certain issues
raised in reconsideration petitions pertaining to the previously
promulgated rule in 2012. EPA proposed these amendments on August 18,
2015.
Summary of Legal Basis: New source performance standards are issued
under CAA section 111.
Alternatives: Alternatives for this final rule have not yet been
determined. The EPA proposed both methane and VOC standards for several
emission sources not currently covered by the NSPS (i.e., hydraulically
fractured oil well completions, fugitive emissions from well sites and
compressor stations, and pneumatic pumps). In addition, the EPA
proposed methane standards for certain emission sources that are
currently regulated for VOC (i.e., hydraulically fractured gas well
completions, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants). The
proposed amendments would establish methane standards for certain
equipment across the source category and extend the current VOC
standards to the remaining unregulated equipment. Lastly, amendments
proposed to the current NSPS that improve implementation of several
aspects of the current standards. Except for the implementation
improvements and the setting of standards for methane, these amendments
do not change the requirements for operations already covered by the
current standards. The EPA has incorporated flexibility to the extent
possible into the proposed rule affected sources can achieve emissions
reductions in a cost-effective way. In additional to proposing
alternatives options where possible, the EPA solicited comments on
alternative approaches. We believe that affected sources already
complying with more stringent State requirements may also be in
compliance with this rule. Furthermore, the EPA is mindful that some
facilities that will be subject to the proposed EPA standards will also
be subject to current or future requirements of the Department of
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rules covering production of
natural gas on Federal lands. The EPA and BLM have maintained an
ongoing dialogue during development of this action to identify
opportunities for alignment and ways to minimize potential conflicting
requirements and will continue to coordinate through the agencies'
respective proposals and final rulemakings.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA is currently assessing the
costs and benefits associated with the final action. The August 18,
2015, proposal estimated the emission reductions are 340,000 to 400,000
tons of methane, 170,000 to 180,000 tons of VOC, and 1,900 to 2,500
tons of hazardous air pollutants in 2025. The proposal's methane-
related monetized climate benefits are estimated to be $460 to $550
million in 2025. The estimate of total annualized engineering costs of
the proposed NSPS (with gas savings) is $320 to $420 million in 2025.
The quantified net benefits are estimated to be $120 to $150 million in
2025 using a 3 percent discount rate (model average) for climate
benefits.
Risks: This action is a reconsideration of new source performance
standards and, thus, does not assess risk.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/18/15 80 FR 56593
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/17/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
URL for More Information: www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas.
Agency Contact: Bruce Moore, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919
541-5460, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS30
EPA--AR
106. Model Trading Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric
Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014
Priority: Economically Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 62.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA is planning a notice of final rulemaking for
model rules to implement greenhouse gas emission guidelines for
existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Emission
guidelines were signed 8/3/15 as the Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
Units (the Clean Power Plan). This plan is part of the President's
Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013 to reduce carbon emissions
from the power sector by 30 percent below 2005 levels. This
[[Page 77865]]
action offers States model trading rules that they can follow in
developing their own plans in order to capitalize on the flexibility
built into the final Emission Guidelines.
Statement of Need: The Federal plan and model trading rules
proposal is part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan (CAP). The
CAP called for the reduction of carbon emissions from the power sector
by 30 percent below 2005 levels. In this action, the EPA has proposed a
Federal plan to implement the Clean Power Plan emission guidelines
(EGs) for affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs operating in States that do
not have approved State plans. Specifically, the EPA has co-proposed
two different approaches to a Federal plan to implement the Clean Power
Plan EGs--a rate-based trading approach and a mass-based trading
approach. The proposal also serves to provide a model rule that States
can tailor for implementation as a State plan. A State program that
adheres to the model trading rule provisions specified in this
rulemaking would be presumptively approvable. The Federal plan will
achieve the same levels of emissions performance as required of State
plans under the EGs. The agency has proposed a finding that it is
necessary or appropriate to implement a Clean Air Act (CAA) section
111(d) Federal plan for the affected EGUs located in Indian country.
The agency has also proposed certain enhancements to the process and
timing for State submittals and EPA action in the CAA section 111(d)
framework regulations of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B (these proposals are
not a part of the Federal plan or model trading rules).
Summary of Legal Basis: Greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution threatens
the American public's health and welfare by contributing to long-
lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative
effects on human health and the environment. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that GHGs meet the definition of ``air pollutant'' in the CAA,
and this decision clarified that the CAA's authorities and requirements
apply to GHG emissions. GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2)
from power plants, may persist in the atmosphere from decades to
millennia, depending on the specific GHG. This special characteristic
makes it crucial to take initial steps now to limit GHG emissions from
fossil fuel-fired power plants, specifically emissions of
CO2, since they are the nation's largest sources of carbon
pollution. Section 111(d)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(2), provides
the EPA the same authority to prescribe a plan for a state in cases
where the state fails to submit a satisfactory plan as the agency would
have under CAA section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit an
implementation plan. In addition, the EPA has authority under CAA
section 111(d)(1) to prescribe regulations that establish procedures
similar to CAA section 110 with respect to the submission of state
plans, and the EPA also has general rulemaking authority, as necessary,
to implement the CAA under CAA section 301. This rule will provide
model rules that states can tailor for implementation as a state plan
to ensure that emission standards under authority of section 111 of the
CAA (the Clean Power Plan EGs) are implemented for affected EGUs.
Alternatives: The final Clean Power Plan EGs are related to, but
separate from the model trading rules and the federal plan. The final
EGs detail the CO2 reduction goals for sources by state. The
purpose of the model rules is to provide states an example that the
states can follow in developing their own plans in order to capitalize
on the flexibility built into the final Clean Power Plan EGs. The
purpose of the federal plan is to lay out mechanisms to achieve
reductions in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs that are not
covered by an EPA-approved state plan. The EPA has co-proposed two
basic approaches to a federal plan, a rate-based emission trading
program and a mass-based emission trading program. Within these two
approaches, the EPA has presented a range of options for comment
through which affected EGUs would meet a rate-based goal or a mass-
based equivalent. The EPA has incorporated flexibility to the extent
possible into the proposed federal plan so affected units can achieve
these reductions in a cost-effective way.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA estimated the annual
incremental compliance cost for the rate-based Federal plan approach to
be $2.5 billion in 2020, $1.0 billion in 2025 and $8.4 billion in 2030.
The EPA estimated the annual incremental compliance cost for the mass-
based Federal plan approach to be $1.4 billion in 2020, $3.0 billion in
2025, and $5.1 billion in 2030. The Federal plan would be implemented
only in those States that do not have a fully approved State plan as
required under the final Clean Power Plan. In those States where a
Federal plan may be required, a final Federal plan will implement the
same emission guidelines for affected power plants outlined in the
Clean Power Plan. The model trading rules and the Federal plan would
not require additional control requirements or impose additional costs.
States operating under a Federal plan may adopt complementary measures
outside of that plan to facilitate compliance and lower costs to the
benefit of power generators and consumers. Implementing the proposed
action will generate benefits by reducing emissions of CO2
and criteria pollutant precursors, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and directly emitted particles. The estimated benefits
associated with these emission reductions are beyond those achieved by
previous EPA rulemakings including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
rule. The health and welfare benefits from reducing air pollution were
considered co-benefits for the proposal. We were only able to quantify
the climate benefits from reduced emissions of CO2 and the
health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5
and ozone. There were many additional benefits which we were not able
to quantify, leading to an underestimate of monetized benefits. In
summary, we estimated the total combined climate benefits and health
co-benefits for the rate-based Federal plan approach to be $3.5 to $4.6
billion in 2020, $18 to $28 billion in 2025, and $34 to $54 billion in
2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$). Total combined climate benefits
and health co-benefits for the mass-based Federal plan approach were
estimated to be $5.3 to $8.1 billion in 2020, $19 to $29 billion in
2025, and $32 to $48 billion in 2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$).
Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of
climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the
2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this
determination based primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/23/15 80 FR 64965
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/21/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 08/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Toni Jones, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
[[Page 77866]]
and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919
541-0316, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: [email protected].
Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
4080, Fax: 919 541-1039, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS47
EPA--AR
107. Proposed Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2017 and
Biomass Based Diesel Volume (BBD) for 2018
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7619 Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 30, 2015. Statutory
November 30.
Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable
fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to
be set for four different categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total
renewable fuel. The statute requires the standards be finalized by
November 30 of the year prior to the year in which the standards would
apply. In the case of biomass-based diesel, the statute requires
applicable volumes be set no later than 14 months before the year for
which the requirements would apply. This action would propose the
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2017, and
would also proposed the BBD standard for 2018.
Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act section 211(o) specifies
annual volume requirements for renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to be set for four different
categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year
in which the standards would apply. In the case of biomass-based
diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes be set no later than 14
months before the year for which the requirements would apply. This
action would, as required by law, propose the applicable volumes for
all renewable fuel categories for 2017, and would also proposed the BBD
standard for 2018.
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act section 211(o) requires EPA
to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard Program. The CAA requires
that the Agency set annual volume requirements for four different
categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year
in which the standards would apply.
Alternatives: Application of specific provisions for this program
are set forth in the law. The law requires standards be established
annually. The only alternatives authorized under the law are those
which allow for waiving in whole or in part the volumes of renewable
fuel for which the standards apply.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Illustrative cost scenarios will be
prepared during development of the rule. The short time frame provided
for the annual renewable fuel rule process does not allow sufficient
time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the
standards, and the statute does not require it. Moreover, the costs and
benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the
program is fully mature in 2022. We continue to believe that this is
the case, as the annual standard-setting process encourages
consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year to year) basis,
which may not reflect the long-term economic effects of the program.
Therefore, for the purpose of the annual rulemaking, we are preparing
illustrative cost impacts.
Risks: Failure to set RFS annual standards would create uncertainty
in the marketplace as to the volumes of renewable fuels that are
required for blending in transportation fuels.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4507,
Email: [email protected].
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS72
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Proposed Rule Stage
108. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of use
Authorizations
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 761.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA's regulations governing the use of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment and other
applications were first issued in the late 1970s and have not been
updated since 1998. The EPA has initiated rulemaking to reassess the
ongoing authorized uses of PCBs to determine whether certain use
authorizations should be ended or phased out because they can no longer
be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act,
which requires that the authorized use will not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health and the environment. As the first step in this
reassessment, the EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2010. The EPA reviewed and considered all
comments received on the ANPRM in planning the current rulemaking. This
action will address the following specific areas: (1) The use,
distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs
in electric equipment; (2) improvements to the existing use
authorization for natural gas pipelines; and (3) definitional and other
regulatory ``fixes.'' The reassessment of use authorizations related to
liquid PCBs in equipment will focus on small capacitors in fluorescent
light ballasts, large capacitors, transformers and other electrical
equipment. In addition, revised testing, characterization, and
reporting requirements for PCBs in natural gas pipeline systems to
provide more transparency for the Agency and the public when PCB
releases occur will be considered. Consistent with Executive Order
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'', wherever
possible and consistent with the overall objectives of this rulemaking,
the Agency will also eliminate or fix regulatory inefficiencies noted
by the Agency or in public comments on the ANPRM.
[[Page 77867]]
Statement of Need: The EPA is reassessing authorized uses of PCBs
to determine whether certain uses should be ended or phased out because
they can no longer be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, which requires that the authorized use will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. A
rulemaking is needed to revise or revoke any PCB use authorizations
that no longer meet the TSCA unreasonable risk standard.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action comes from
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 605(e)(2)(B) and
(C)), as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).
Alternatives: The EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 7, 2010, and took comment through August
20, 2010. EPA reviewed and considered all comments received on the
ANPRM in planning the current rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA is currently evaluating the
costs and benefits of this action.
Risks: The EPA is currently evaluating the possible risks presented
by ongoing uses of PCBs. PCB exposures can cause significant human
health and ecological effects. The EPA and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) have characterized some commercial PCB
mixtures as probably carcinogenic to humans. In addition to
carcinogenicity, potential effects of PCB exposure include
neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system
suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption.
PCBs persist in the environment for long periods of time and
bioaccumulate, especially in fish and marine animals. PCBs are also
readily transported across long distances in the environment, and can
easily cycle between air, water, and soil.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/07/10 75 FR 17645
Second ANPRM........................ 06/16/10 75 FR 34076
NPRM................................ 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757.
Sectors Affected: 31-33 Manufacturing; 54 Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services; 92 Public Administration; 53 Real Estate and
Rental and Leasing; 811 Repair and Maintenance; 48-49 Transportation
and Warehousing; 22 Utilities; 562 Waste Management and Remediation
Services.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pcb.
Agency Contact: Sara Kemme, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 566-0511, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email:
[email protected].
Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
202 566-0515, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AJ38
EPA--OCSPP
109. Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal. The EPA
identified trichloroethylene (TCE) for risk evaluation as part of its
Work Plan for Chemical Assessment under TSCA. TCE is used in industrial
and commercial processes, and also has some limited uses in consumer
products. In the June 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment for
TCE, the EPA identified risks associated with commercial degreasing and
some consumer uses. EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6
to address these risks, if the EPA finds that there is a reasonable
basis to conclude that the risks to human health or the environment are
unreasonable.
Statement of Need: In the June 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk
Assessment for TCE, the EPA identified risks associated with commercial
degreasing and some consumer uses. The EPA is initiating a rulemaking
under TSCA section 6 to address these risks. Specifically, the EPA will
determine whether the continued use of TCE in some commercial
degreasing uses, as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain
consumer products would pose an unreasonable risk to human health and
the environment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal.
Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed as part of the
development of a proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA will prepare a regulatory
impact analysis as part of the development of a proposed rule.
Risks: In the published TCE Risk Assessment, the EPA identified
significant risks to human health in occupational, consumer and
residential settings. The risk assessment identified health risks from
TCE exposures to consumers using aerosol degreasers and spray
fixatives, and health risks to workers when TCE is used in commercial
shops and as a stain removing agent in dry cleaning.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/.
Agency Contact: Toni Krasnic, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0984, Email: [email protected].
Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-7716, Fax: 202 564-4775, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK03
EPA--OCSPP
110. N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene Chloride; Rulemaking Under
TSCA Section 6(A)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
[[Page 77868]]
CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides
authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of chemicals, as
well as any manner or method of disposal of chemicals. The EPA
identified n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride for risk
evaluation as part of its TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. NMP
and methylene chloride are used in commercial processes and in consumer
products in residential settings. In the August 2014 TSCA Work Plan
Chemical Risk Assessment for methylene chloride and the March 2015 TSCA
Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment for NMP, the EPA identified risks
associated with commercial and consumer paint and varnish stripping
uses. The EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address
these risks, if the EPA finds that there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that the risks to human health or the environment are
unreasonable.
Statement of Need: The EPA identified n-methylpyrrolidone and
methylene chloride for risk evaluation as part of its Work Plan for
Chemical Assessments under TSCA. In the August 2014 Risk Assessment for
methylene chloride and March 2015 Risk Assessment for NMP, the EPA
identified risks associated with commercial and consumer paint removal
uses. The EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address
these risks. Specifically, the EPA will determine whether the use of
NMP or methylene chloride in commercial and consumer paint removal
poses an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal.
Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed as part of the
development of a proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA will prepare a regulatory
impact analysis as part of the development of a proposed rule.
Risks: As indicated in the published Risk Assessments and
supplemental analyses for these chemicals, the EPA determined that
there is risk of adverse human health effects (acute and chronic) for
methylene chloride and NMP in occupational, consumer and residential
settings.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/.
Agency Contact: Niva Kramek, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Fax: 703 305-5884, Email:
[email protected].
Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-7716, Fax: 202 564-4775, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK07
EPA--SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SWER)
Proposed Rule Stage
111. Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(B)
for Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining Industry
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9608(b)
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
establishes certain authorities concerning financial responsibility
requirements. The Agency has identified classes of facilities within
the hard rock mining industry as those for which financial
responsibility requirements will be first developed. EPA intends to
include requirements for financial responsibility, as well as
notification and implementation.
Statement of Need: EPA's 108(b) rules will address the degree and
duration of risks associated with aspects of hazardous substance
management at hard rock mining and mineral processing facilities. These
regulations will help ensure that businesses make financial
arrangements to address risks from hazardous substances at their sites,
and encourage businesses to improve their management of hazardous
substances.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning
financial responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory
language addresses the promulgation of regulations that require classes
of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous substances.
Alternatives: The EPA is considering proposing for comment
alternatives for allowable types of financial instruments.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA expects that the primary
costs of the rule will be the costs to facilities for procuring
required financial instruments. The EPA also expects to incur
administrative and oversight costs. These regulations will help ensure
that businesses make financial arrangements to address risks from
hazardous substances at their sites, and encourage businesses to
improve their management of hazardous substances.
Risks: EPA's 108(b) rules are intended to address the risks
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or
disposal of hazardous substances at hard rock mining and mineral
processing facilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 07/28/09 74 FR 37213
NPRM................................ 08/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265. Split from
RIN 2050-AG56.
Sectors Affected: 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas); 331 Primary
Metal Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/financialresponsibility/.
[[Page 77869]]
URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0001.
Agency Contact: Ben Lesser, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, 5302P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703
308-0314, Email: [email protected].
Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG61
EPA--SWER
112. User Fee Schedule for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6939(g)
CFR Citation: Undetermined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: After promulgation of the first e-Manifest regulation in
February 2014 to authorize the use of electronic manifests and to
codify key provisions of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act (or Act), the EPA is moving forward on the
development of the separate e-Manifest User Fee Schedule Regulation.
The Act authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable
service fees that are necessary to pay costs incurred in developing,
operating, maintaining and upgrading the system, including costs
incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper manifest
submitted to the system after the date on which the system enters
operation. The agency plans to issue both a proposed and final rule in
setting the appropriate electronic manifest and manifest fees. The EPA
intends to propose for comment the fee methodology for establishing the
electronic manifest and paper service fees. The agency plans in a final
rule to establish a program of fees that will be imposed on users of
the e-manifest system and announce the user fee schedule for manifest-
related activities, including activities associated with the collection
and processing of paper manifests submitted to the EPA. The agency also
plans in that final rule to announce (1) the date upon which the EPA
will be ready to transmit and receive manifests through the national e-
Manifest system and (2) the date upon which the user community must
comply with the new e-Manifest regulation.
Statement of Need: On February 7, 2014, the EPA promulgated the e-
Manifest Final rule, in order to comply with the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, which required the EPA to issue
a regulation authorizing electronic manifests by October 5, 2013. In
issuing that rule, the EPA completed an important step that must
precede the development of a national e-Manifest system, as required by
the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. This rule is
the second regulation that must precede the development of the e-
Manifest system. This action will implement the broad discretion
granted on the Agency to establish reasonable user fees for the various
activities associated with using and submitting electronic and paper
manifests to the national system. Additionally, OMB Circular A-25 on
User Charges provides that agencies of the Executive Branch must
generally set user fee charges or fees through regulation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2(c) of the e-Manifest Act
authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable user fees to
pay any costs incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and
upgrading the system, including any costs incurred in collecting and
processing data from any paper manifest submitted to the system. Thus,
this Action will implement the broad discretion granted on the Agency
to establish reasonable user fees for the various activities associated
with using and submitting electronic and paper manifests to the
national system.
Alternatives: The EPA plans to issue rulemaking to establish the
appropriate electronic manifest and paper manifest fees. The EPA plans
to propose for comment alternatives for imposing and collecting
electronic manifest and paper fees.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: When the e-Manifest Final Rule was
published in February 2014, the Agency deferred the development of the
detailed risk impact analysis (RIA) for the e-Manifest system until the
User Fee Schedule Rule. Thus, the RIA for the proposed User Fee
Schedule Rule will not be limited to the impacts of the user fees
announced in the rule, but will also estimate the costs and benefits of
the overall e-Manifest system. The primary costs in the e-Manifest RIA
will be the cost to build the system, the costs for industry and state
governments to connect to the system, and the cost to run the system.
The most significant benefit of the e-Manifest system estimated in the
RIA will be reduced burden for industry to comply with RCRA manifesting
requirements, and the reduced burden on states that collect and utilize
manifest data for program management purposes.
Risks: This action does not address any particular risks in the
EPA's jurisdiction as it does not change existing requirements for
manifesting hazardous waste shipments. It will merely propose for
comment our fee methodology for setting the appropriate fees of
electronic manifests, and paper manifests that continue in use, at such
time as the system to receive them is built and operational.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Local.
Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.
Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 21
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; 22 Utilities; 23
Construction; 31-33 Manufacturing; 42 Wholesale Trade; 44-45 Retail
Trade; 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing; 51 Information; 562 Waste
Management and Remediation Services; 92 Public Administration.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm.
Agency Contact: Rich LaShier, Environmental Protection Agency,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
703 308-8796, Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
Bryan Groce, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8750,
Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG80
EPA--SWER
113. Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations
Under Clean Air Act
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In response to Executive Order 13650, the EPA is
considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program
regulations and related programs. The Agency may
[[Page 77870]]
consider the addition of new accident prevention or emergency response
program elements, and/or changes to existing elements, and/or other
changes to the existing regulatory provisions.
Statement of Need: In response to Executive Order 13650, the EPA is
considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program
regulations. The Executive Order establishes the Chemical Facility
Safety and Security Working Group (``Working Group''), co-chaired by
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the EPA, and
the Secretary of Labor or their designated representatives at the
Assistant Secretary level or higher, and composed of senior
representatives of other federal departments, agencies, and offices.
The Executive Order requires the Working Group to carry out a number of
tasks whose overall goal is to prevent chemical accidents, such as the
explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas,
on April 17, 2013, which killed 15 people, injured many others, and did
extensive damage to the town. Section 6(a)(i) of the Executive Order
requires the Working Group to develop options for improved chemical
facility safety and security that identify ``improvements to existing
risk management practices through agency programs, private sector
initiatives, Government guidance, outreach, standards, and
regulations.'' Section 6(c) of Executive Order 13650 requires the
Administrator of the EPA to review the RMP Program (RMP).
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7) authorizes
the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations to prevent accidental
releases. Section 112(r)(7)(A) authorizes release prevention,
detection, and correction requirements that may include a broad range
of methods, make distinctions among classes and types of facilities,
and may take into consideration other factors, including, but not
limited to, size, location, process and substance factors, and response
capabilities. Section 112(r)(7)(B) authorizes reasonable regulations
and appropriate guidance to provide, to the greatest extent
practicable, for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of
regulated substances and for response to such releases by the owners or
operators of the sources of such releases.
Alternatives: The EPA is considering revisions to the accident
prevention, emergency response, recordkeeping, and other provisions in
40 CFR part 68 to address chemical accident risks. The proposed action
will contain the EPA's preferred option, as well as alternative
regulatory options. The EPA also is considering publishing guidance to
address some issues that may be raised in the proposed action.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs will include the burden on
regulated entities associated with implementing new or revised
requirements, including program implementation, training, equipment
purchases, and recordkeeping, as applicable. Some costs will also
accrue to implementing agencies and local governments, due to enhanced
local coordination and recordkeeping requirements. Benefits will result
from avoiding the harmful accident consequences to communities and the
environment, such as deaths, injuries, and property damage,
environmental damage, and from mitigating the effects of releases that
may occur.
Risks: The proposed action will address the risks associated with
accidental releases of listed regulated toxic and flammable substances
to the air from stationary sources. Substances regulated under the RMP
program include highly toxic and flammable substances that can cause
deaths, injuries, property and environmental damage, and other on- and
off-site consequences if accidentally released. The proposed action
will reduce these risks by making accidental releases less likely, and
by mitigating the severity of releases that may occur. The proposed
action would not address the risks of non-accidental chemical releases,
accidental releases of non-regulated substances, chemicals released to
other media, and air releases from mobile sources.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 49313 Farm Product
Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing; 311 Food Manufacturing; 221112 Fossil
Fuel Electric Power Generation; 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and
Vegetable Manufacturing; 49311 General Warehousing and Storage; 31152
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing; 311612 Meat Processed from
Carcasses; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 32519 Other Basic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 42469 Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 49319 Other Warehousing and Storage; 322
Paper Manufacturing; 42471 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 32411
Petroleum Refineries; 311615 Poultry Processing; 49312 Refrigerated
Warehousing and Storage; 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities; 11511
Support Activities for Crop Production; 22131 Water Supply and
Irrigation Systems.
URL for More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/rmp.
Agency Contact: James Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202
564-8023, Fax: 202 564-8444, Email: [email protected].
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987,
Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG82
EPA--AIR AND RADIATION (AR)
Final Rule Stage
114. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7409
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the EPA is
required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria
for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On November 12,
2008, the EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and
secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public
health and welfare. The EPA has now initiated the next review. This new
review includes the preparation of an Integrated Review Plan, an
Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure
Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document by the EPA, with
opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's
proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. The
proposed decision was published in the Federal Register with
opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final
decisions will take into consideration these documents and
[[Page 77871]]
public comment on the proposed decision.
Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA
is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. In the
last lead NAAQS review, EPA published a final rule on November 12,
2008, to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide
increased protection for public health and welfare.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision
on the review of the national ambient air quality standards for lead is
whether to retain or revise the existing standards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not
to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such
factors may be considered in the development of state plans to
implement the standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes
revisions to the standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit
information in order to provide states information that may be useful
in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed
or final standards. In those instances, cost and benefit information is
generally included in the regulatory analysis accompanying the final
rule.
Risks: As part of the review, the EPA prepares an Integrated Review
Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/
Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment document, with
opportunities for review by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee and the public. These documents will inform the
Administrator's decision as to whether to retain or revise the
standards. The proposed decision was published in the Federal Register
with opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final
decisions will take into consideration these documents and public
comment on the proposed decision.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/05/15 80 FR 277
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
Agency Contact: Deirdre Murphy, Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation, C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone:
919 541-0729, Fax: 919 541-0840, Email: [email protected].
Ginger Tennant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation,
C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-4072, Fax:
919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AQ44
EPA--AR
115. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 9; 40 CFR 22; 40 CFR
85; 40 CFR 86; 40 CFR 600; 40 CFR 1033; 40 CFR 1039; 40 CFR 1042; 40
CFR 1043; 40 CFR 1065; 40 CFR 1066; 40 CFR 1068.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: During the President's second term, the EPA and the
Department of Transportation, in close coordination with the California
Air Resources Board, are developing a comprehensive National Program
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for model years beyond 2018. These second sets of
standards would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption from a wide range of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to
the largest pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work
trucks and buses. This action will be in continued response to the
President's directive to take coordinated steps to produce a new
generation of clean vehicles. This action follows the first ever
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (75 FR 57106, September 15,
2011).
Statement of Need: Under Clean Air Act authority, the EPA has
determined that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from new motor
vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
Therefore, there is a need to reduce GHG emissions from medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles to protect public health and welfare. The medium-
and heavy-duty truck sector accounts for approximately 23 percent of
the U.S. mobile source GHG emissions and is the second-largest mobile
source sector. GHG emissions from this sector are forecast to continue
increasing rapidly; reflecting the anticipated impact of factors such
as economic growth and increased movement of freight by trucks. This
rulemaking would significantly reduce GHG emissions from future medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles by setting GHG standards that will lead to the
introduction of GHG-reducing vehicle and engine technologies.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) states
that ``The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time
to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section,
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.''
Section 202(a) covers all on-highway vehicles including medium- and
heavy-duty trucks. In April 2007, the Supreme Court found in
Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's
definition of ``air pollutant'' and that EPA has statutory authority to
regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. Lastly, in
April 2009, EPA issued the Proposed Endangerment and Cause-or-
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The
endangerment proposal stated that greenhouse gases from new motor
vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
Alternatives: The rulemaking will include an evaluation of
regulatory alternatives. In addition, the rule is expected to include
tools such as averaging, banking, and trading of emissions credits as
an alternative approach for compliance with the program.
[[Page 77872]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of economy-wide
cost impacts, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and societal benefits
will be performed during development of the rule.
Risks: The failure to set new GHG standards for medium- and heavy-
duty trucks risks continued increases in GHG emissions from the
trucking industry and therefore increased risk of unacceptable climate
change impacts.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/13/15 80 FR 40137
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/11/15 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 09/02/15 80 FR 53756
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 10/01/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Agency Contact: Matt Spears, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation, Mail Code: ASD1, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4921, Fax: 734 214-4816, Email: [email protected].
Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation,
NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4826.
RIN: 2060-AS16
EPA--AR
116. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards, 2014-2016 (Reg Plan)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80, subpart M.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable
fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to
be set for four different categories of renewable fuels: Cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total
renewable fuel. The statute requires the standards be finalized by
November 30 of the year prior to the year in which the standards would
apply. In the case of biomass-based diesel, the statute requires
applicable volumes be set no later than 14 months before the year for
which the requirements would apply. This action would finalize the
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2014, 2015 and
2016, and would also finalize the BBD standard for 2017.
Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) specifies
annual volume requirements for renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to be set for four different
categories of renewable fuels: Cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year
in which the standards would apply. In the case of biomass based
diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes be set no later than 14
months before the year for which the requirements would apply. This
action would, as required by law, finalize the applicable volumes for
all renewable fuel categories for 2014--2016, and would also finalize
the BBD standard for 2017.
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act Section 211(o) requires EPA
to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard Program. The Act requires the
Agency set annual volume requirements for four different categories of
renewable fuels: Cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel (BBD),
advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires the
standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year in
which the standards would apply.
Alternatives: Application of specific provisions for this program
are set forth in the law. The law requires standards be established
annually. The only alternatives authorized under the law are those
which allow for waiving in whole or in part the volumes of renewable
fuel for which the standards apply.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits of the program
were analyzed in the 2010 Final Rule establishing the regulatory
provisions for the RFS program.
Risks: Risks of the program were analyzed in the 2010 Final Rule
establishing the regulatory provisions for the RFS program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/10/15 80 FR 33100
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/27/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing; 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 424690 Other
Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; 454319 Other Fuel
Dealers; 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 324110 Petroleum
Refineries; 424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
URL for More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program.
Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4507,
Email: [email protected].
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS22
EPA--AR
117. Findings That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or
Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To
Endanger Public Health and Welfare Under CAA Section 231 (Reg Plan)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 87; 40 CFR 1068.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA issued its proposed findings under section 231(a)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37757) that aircraft
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cause or contribute to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare. This action will finalize the proposed findings and respond to
public comments. If finalized, the findings are scientific
determinations under section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act; the EPA is
not planning at this time
[[Page 77873]]
to propose or issue aircraft engine GHG emission standards. This action
continues to rely on the peer-reviewed science from the major climate
change science assessments of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), National Research Council (NRC), and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underlying the 2009 endangerment and
cause or contribute findings for GHGs under section 202 of the CAA,
along with updated reports from the same major climate change
assessments.
Statement of Need: This action makes a determination regarding the
current and future threat of climate change to public health and
welfare. This action comes in response to a citizen petition submitted
by Friends of the Earth, Oceana, the Center for Biological Diversity,
and Earthjustice requesting that the EPA issue a GHG endangerment
finding and standards under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Act for GHG
emissions from aircraft engines. Further, the EPA anticipates that the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt a final
international aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standard in
February 2016. The outcome of the final aircraft GHG endangerment and
cause or contribute findings is a pre-requisite for the subsequent
domestic rulemaking process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states that
``The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of aircraft engines which in [her] judgment causes, or
contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'' Before the Administrator may issue
standards addressing emissions of GHGs under section 231, the
Administrator must satisfy a two-step test. First, the Administrator
must decide whether, in her judgment, the air pollution under
consideration may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. Second, the Administrator must decide whether, in her
judgment, emissions of an air pollutant from certain classes of
aircraft engines cause or contribute to this air pollution. If the
Administrator answers both questions in the affirmative, she must issue
standards under section 231. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497,
533 (2007) (interpreting analogous provision in CAA section 202).
Alternatives: This section is not applicable, as this action is a
scientific determination and does not create any regulatory standards
under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This section is not applicable, as
this action is a scientific determination and does not create any
regulatory standards under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
Risks: The risks discussed here are the current and future threat
of climate change to public health and welfare, relying on the
scientific and technical evidence in the record for the 2009 section
202 CAA endangerment and cause or contribute findings and building on
it with more recent major scientific assessments.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/01/15 80 FR 37757
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 08/31/15 .......................
NPRM................................ 07/01/15 80 FR 37757
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/31/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0228.
URL for More Information: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm.
Agency Contact: Lesley Jantarasami, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6207-A,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9929, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS31
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Final Rule Stage
118. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Federal Insecticide Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 171.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule to revise the federal
regulations governing the certified pesticide applicator program (40
CFR part 171). In August 2015, the EPA proposed revisions based on
years of extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, to
ensure that they adequately protect applicators, the public, and the
environment from potential harm due to exposure to restricted use
pesticides (RUPs). This action is intended to improve the training and
awareness of certified applicators of RUPs and to increase protection
for noncertified applicators of RUPs operating under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety
training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators.
Statement of Need: Change is needed to strengthen the protections
for pesticide applicators, the public, and the environment from harm
due to pesticide exposure.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is issued under the authority
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7
U.S.C. 136-136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.
Alternatives: The Agency has developed mechanisms to improve
applicator trainers and make training materials more accessible. The
Agency has also developed nationally relevant training and
certification materials to preserve State resources while improving
competency. However, these mechanisms and materials do not address
other requisite needs for improving protections, such as requirements
for determining competency and recertification. The EPA worked with key
stakeholders to identify and evaluate various alternatives and
regulatory options during the development of the proposed rule. These
are discussed in detail in the proposed rule, and Economic Analysis
that was prepared for the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA prepared an Economic
Analysis (EA) of the potential costs and impacts associated with the
proposed rule, a copy or which is available in the docket, discussed in
more detail in unit III of the proposed rule; and briefly summarized
here. The EPA monetized benefits based on avoided acute pesticide
incidents are estimated at $80.5 million/year after adjustment for
underreporting of pesticide incidents (EA chapter 6.5). Qualitative
benefits include the following:
Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide
exposure beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity.
Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.
Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide
exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families,
[[Page 77874]]
including a range of illnesses such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate
cancer, Parkinson's disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and
asthma. (EA chapter 6.4 & 6.6) EPA estimated total incremental costs of
$47.2 million/year (EA chapter 5), which included the following:
$19.5 million/year for costs to Private Applicators, with
an estimated 490,000 impacted and an average cost of $40 per applicator
(EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
$27.4 million/year for costs to Commercial Applicators,
with an estimated 414,000 impacted and an average cost of $66 per
applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
$359,000 for costs to States and other jurisdictions, with
an estimated 63 impacted (EA chapter 5). The EPA estimated that there
is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA
estimated that the proposed rule may affect over 800,000 small farms
that use pesticides, although about half are unlikely to apply
restricted use pesticides. The estimated impact for small entities is
less than 0.1% of the annual revenues for the average small entity (EA
chapter 5.7). The EPA also estimated that the proposed rule will have a
negligible effect on jobs and employment because most private and
commercial applicators are self-employed; and the estimated incremental
cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the cost of a
part-time employee (EA chapter 5.6).
Risks: Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they
handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at
risk from misapplication by applicators. Revisions to the regulations
are expected to minimize these risks by ensuring the competency of
certified applicators.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/24/15 80 FR 51355
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183. Includes
retrospective review under Executive Order 13563.
Sectors Affected: 9241 Administration of Environmental Quality
Programs; 111 Crop Production; 32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural
Chemical Manufacturing; 5617 Services to Buildings and Dwellings.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.
URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183-0001.
Agency Contact: Michelle Arling, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-5891, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email:
[email protected].
Kevin Keaney, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506c, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AJ20
EPA--OCSPP
119. Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013, Deadline for
promulgation of regulations, per 15 U.S.C. 2697(d).
Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule under the Formaldehyde
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act that was enacted in 2010 as
title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697. In
2013, EPA issued two proposed rules. A proposed rule to establish a
framework for a TSCA title VI Third-Party Certification Program whereby
third-party certifiers (TPCs) are accredited by accreditation bodies
(ABs) so that they may certify composite wood product panel producers
under TSCA title VI. That proposed rule identified the roles and
responsibilities of the groups involved in the TPC process (EPA, ABs,
and TPCs), as well as the criteria for participation in the program. It
also proposed general requirements for TPCs, such as conducting and
verifying formaldehyde emission tests, inspecting and auditing panel
producers, and ensuring that panel producers' quality assurance and
quality control procedures comply with the regulations set forth in the
proposed rule. A separate proposed rule issued in 2013 under RIN 2070-
AJ92 covered the implementation of the statutory formaldehyde emission
standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and
particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured
(including imported) in the United States. Pursuant to TSCA section
3(7), the definition of manufacture'' includes import. As required by
title VI, these regulations apply to hardwood plywood, medium-density
fiberboard, and particleboard. TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to
promulgate supplementary provisions to ensure compliance with the
emissions standards, including provisions related to labeling; chain of
custody requirements; sell-through provisions; ultra-low-emitting
formaldehyde resins; no-added formaldehyde-based resins; finished
goods; third-party testing and certification; auditing and reporting of
third-party certifiers; recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated products;
and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated
pursuant to this subsection for products and components containing de
minimis amounts of composite wood products. As noted in the previously
published Regulatory Agenda entry for each rulemaking, EPA has decided
to issue a single final rule that addresses both of these proposals. As
such, EPA is also combining the entries for the Regulatory Agenda.
Statement of Need: TSCA title VI directs EPA to promulgate
regulations to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards
and emissions testing requirements for composite wood products
(hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard). It
also directs EPA to include regulatory provisions relating to third-
party testing and certification in addition to the auditing and
reporting of third-party certifiers.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPA will issue this rule under title VI of
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in the
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, which
provides authority for the EPA to ``promulgate regulations to implement
the standards required under subsection (b)'' of the Act. This
provision includes authority to promulgate regulations relating to
``third-party testing and certification'' and ``auditing and reporting
of third-party certifiers.'' Congress directed EPA to consider a number
of elements for inclusion in the implementing regulations, many of
which are aspects of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) program.
These elements include: (a) Labeling, (b) chain of custody
requirements, (c) sell-through provisions, (d) ultra low-emitting
formaldehyde resins, (e) no-added formaldehyde-based resins, (f)
[[Page 77875]]
finished goods, (g) third-party testing and certification, (h) auditing
and reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) enforcement, (k)
laminated products, and (l) exceptions from the requirements of
regulations promulgated for products and components containing de
minimis amounts of composite wood products.
Alternatives: TSCA title VI establishes national formaldehyde
emission standards for composite wood products and the EPA has not been
given the authority to change those standards. EPA is evaluating
allowable alternatives in this rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Economic Analysis issued with
the proposed third-party certification program rule provides the EPA
analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with the
proposed third-party certification program. As proposed, the annualized
costs are estimated at approximately $34,000 per year using either a 3%
discount rate or a 7% discount rate. These requirements would impact an
estimated nine small entities, of which eight are expected to have
impacts of less than 1% of revenues or expenses, and one is expected to
have impacts between 1% and 3%. State, Local, and Tribal Governments
are not expected to be subject to the requirements, which apply to
third-party certifiers and accreditation bodies. The proposal does not
have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique
effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. The
Economic Analysis issued with the proposed implementation rule provides
EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the
proposed implementation requirements. As proposed, the rulemaking will
reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits from avoided
adverse health effects. For the subset of health effects where the
results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits (due to
avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20
million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9
million to $23 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are
additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects.
The annualized costs for the proposed implementation requirements are
estimated at $72 million to $81 million per year using a 3% discount
rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate.
Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's
requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture (including
import), fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. EPA
also estimated that the rulemaking would impact nearly 879,000 small
businesses: Over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% of revenues,
over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms
have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts over
1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per year. The proposed
implementation rule increases the level of environmental protection for
all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population or children. The
estimated costs of the proposed implementation rule exceed the
quantified benefits. There are additional unquantified benefits due to
other avoided health effects. After assessing both the costs and the
benefits of the proposal, including the unquantified benefits, EPA has
made a reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposal justify
its costs.
Risks: At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable
gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. Small amounts of formaldehyde
are naturally produced by plants, animals and humans. Formaldehyde is
used widely by industry to manufacture a range of building materials
and numerous household products. It is in resins used to manufacture
some composite wood products (e.g., hardwood plywood, particleboard and
medium-density fiberboard). Everyone is exposed to small amounts of
formaldehyde in the air, some foods, and products, including composite
wood products. The primary way you can be exposed to formaldehyde is by
breathing air containing it. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the
skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some
types of cancers.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/03/08 73 FR 73620
Second ANPRM........................ 01/30/09 74 FR 5632
NPRM................................ 06/10/13 78 FR 34795
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 07/23/13 78 FR 44090
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 08/21/13 78 FR 51696
Final Rule.......................... 05/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Docket #: ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-
0627; NPRM Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380; NPRM2 Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-
0018. This entry includes the rulemaking previously identified under
RIN 2070-AJ92.
Sectors Affected: 541611 Administrative Management and General
Management Consulting Services; 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing; 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services; 561990 All Other Support Services; 813910 Business
Associations; 337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork
Manufacturing; 321213 Engineered Wood Member (except Truss)
Manufacturing; 541330 Engineering Services; 423210 Furniture Merchant
Wholesalers; 442110 Furniture Stores; 444130 Hardware Stores; 321211
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing; 444110 Home Centers; 33712
Household and Institutional Furniture Manufacturing; 337127
Institutional Furniture Manufacturing; 423310 Lumber, Plywood,
Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers; 453930 Manufactured
(Mobile) Home Dealers; 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home)
Manufacturing; 336213 Motor Home Manufacturing; 337122 Nonupholstered
Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing; 444190 Other Building Material
Dealers; 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers;
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 321992 Prefabricated
Wood Building Manufacturing; 813920 Professional Organizations; 321219
Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing; 441210 Recreational Vehicle
Dealers; 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker
Manufacturing; 321212 Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing; 541380
Testing Laboratories; 336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing;
337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing; 3212 Veneer,
Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing; 337110 Wood Kitchen
Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing; 337211 Wood Office Furniture
Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018-0001; http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html.
[[Page 77876]]
URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380-0001.
Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 566-1081, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AJ44
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,
Commission, or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in
employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the
following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race,
color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal
wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under
similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits
employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and V
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501
and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment
discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination
based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of
genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights
Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state & local
government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The first item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled ``The Federal
Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of Individuals with
Disabilities.'' The EEOC's regulations implementing section 501, as set
forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require Federal agencies and departments to
be ``model employers'' of individuals with disabilities. The Commission
issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 15,
2014, (79 FR 27824), and intends to issue a proposed rule to revise the
regulations regarding the Federal Government's affirmative employment
obligations in 29 CFR part 1614 to include a more detailed explanation
of how Federal agencies and departments should ``give full
consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified
individuals with disabilities.'' Any revisions would be informed by
Management Directive 715, and may include goals consistent with
Executive Order 13548. Furthermore, any revisions would result in costs
only to the Federal Government; would contribute to increasing the
employment of individuals with disabilities; and would not affect risks
to public health, safety, or the environment.
The second item is entitled ``Federal Sector Equal Employment
Opportunity Process.'' In July 2012, the Commission published a final
rule containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal
sector EEO process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. The
Commission issued an ANPRM on February 6, 2015, and intends to issue an
NPRM in August 2016, aimed at making the process more fair and
efficient.
The third item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the
Americans With Disabilities Act.'' This rule would amend the
regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction
between title I of the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties
as part of wellness programs offered through health plans. EEOC also
plans to address other aspects of wellness programs that may be subject
to the ADA's nondiscrimination provisions. The EEOC issued an NPRM on
July 20, 2014, and intends to issue a final rule in February 2016.
The fourth item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.'' This rule would
amend the regulations on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
of 2008 to address inducements to employees' spouses or other family
members who respond to questions about their current or past medical
conditions on health risk assessments. It will also correct a
typographical error in the rule's discussion of wellness programs and
add references to the Affordable Care Act, where appropriate. The EEOC
issued an NPRM on October 30, 2015. The EEOC intends to issue a final
rule in February 2016.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the
Commission.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the EEOC's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
(http://reginfo.gov/) in the Completed Actions section. These
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov (http://regulations.gov). The EEOC's final Plan for Retrospective Analysis of
Existing Rules can be found at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/retro_review_plan_final.cfm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on small
RIN Title business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3046-AA91................. Revisions to This rulemaking may
procedures for decrease burdens on
complaints or small businesses by
charges of making the charge/
employment complaint process
discrimination based more efficient.
on disability
subject to the
Americans with
Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.
3046-AA92................. Revisions to This rulemaking may
procedures for decrease burdens on
complaints/charges small businesses by
of employment making the charge/
discrimination based complaint process
on disability filed more efficient.
against employers
holding government
contacts or
subcontracts.
[[Page 77877]]
3046-AA93................. Revisions to This rulemaking may
procedures for decrease burdens on
complaints of small businesses by
employment making the charge/
discrimination filed complaint process
against recipients more efficient.
of federal financial
assistance.
3046-AB00................. Federal sector equal This rulemaking
employment pertains to the
opportunity process. federal sector equal
employment
opportunity process
and thus is not
expected to affect
small businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEOC
Proposed Rule Stage
120. The Federal Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of
Individuals With Disabilities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 791(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended
(Section 501), prohibits discrimination against individuals with
disabilities in the Federal Government. The EEOC's regulations
implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require
Federal agencies and departments to be ``model employers'' of
individuals with disabilities.\1\ On May 15, 2014, the Commission
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 27824) that
sought public comments on whether and how the existing regulations
could be improved to provide more detail on what being a ``model
employer'' means and how Federal agencies and departments should ``give
full consideration to the hiring, placement and advancement of
qualified individuals with disabilities.'' \2\ The EEOC's review of the
comments and potential revisions was informed by the discussion in
Management Directive 715 of the tools Federal agencies should use to
establish goals for the employment and advancement of individuals with
disabilities. The EEOC's review of the comments and potential revisions
was also informed by, and consistent with, the goals of Executive Order
13548 to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities and
the employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act, the Commission is authorized to issue such regulations as it deems
necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this Act. Executive
Order 13548 called for increased efforts by Federal agencies and
departments to recruit, hire, retain, and return individuals with
disabilities to the Federal workforce.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (section 501), 29 U.S.C. 791, in addition to requiring
nondiscrimination with respect to Federal employees and applicants for
Federal employment who are individuals with disabilities, also requires
Federal agencies to maintain, update annually, and submit to the
Commission an affirmative action program plan for the hiring,
placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities. As part of
its responsibility for the administration and enforcement of equal
opportunity in Federal employment, the Commission is authorized under
29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1) to issue rules, regulations, orders, and
instructions pursuant to section 501.
Alternatives: The EEOC considered all alternatives offered by ANPRM
public commenters. The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
future public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any costs that might result would
only be borne by the Federal Government. The revisions would contribute
to increased employment of individuals with disabilities.
Risks: The proposed changes do not affect risks to public health,
safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 05/15/14 79 FR 27824
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 07/14/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/00/15 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4127, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 3046-AA73
RIN: 3046-AA94
EEOC
121. Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d); 29 U.S.C. 633a; 29 U.S.C. 791;
29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16; E.O. 10577; E.O. 11222; E.O. 11478;
E.O. 12106; Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(e)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In July 2012, the Commission published a final rule
containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal sector
EEO complaint process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. On
February 6, 2015, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that sought public input on additional
issues associated with the Federal sector EEO process.
Statement of Need: Any proposals contained in an NPRM would be
aimed at making the process more fair and efficient.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
authorizes EEOC ``to issue such rules, regulations, orders, and
instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its
responsibilities under . . . section [717].'' 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b).
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, we anticipate that most of the changes will have no cost and
will benefit users of the process by correcting or clarifying the
requirements. Any cost that might result would only be borne by the
Federal Government.
Risks: Any proposed revisions would not affect risks to the public
health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
[[Page 77878]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/06/15 80 FR 6669
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 04/07/15 .......................
NPRM................................ 08/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4668, Fax: 202 653-
6034, Email: [email protected].
Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4666, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3046-AB00
EEOC
122. Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations on the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address
inducements to employees' spouses or other family members who respond
to questions about their current or past medical conditions on health
risk assessments (HRA). This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will also
correct a typographical error in the rule's discussion of wellness
programs and add references to the Affordable Care Act, where
appropriate.
Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1635.8 is needed to
address numerous inquiries received by EEOC about whether an employer
will violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of
2008 by offering an employee a financial inducement if the employee's
family member completes an HRA that asks about the family member's
current health status. Technical amendments are also needed to correct
a typographical error and to include references to the ACA, where
appropriate.
Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10,
requires the EEOC to issue regulations implementing title II of the
Act. The EEOC issued regulations on November 9, 2010. These proposed
revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes
will benefit entities covered by title II of GINA by clarifying that
employers who offer wellness programs are free to adopt a certain type
of inducement without violating GINA, as well as correcting an internal
citation, and providing citations to the ACA.
Risks: The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to
employers. The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/30/15 80 FR 66853
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/29/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4516, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3046-AB02
EEOC
Final Rule Stage
123. Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans with Disabilities
Act
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations to
implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction between title I of
the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties as part of wellness
programs offered through health plans. EEOC also plans to address other
aspects of wellness programs that may be subject to the ADA's
nondiscrimination provisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1630.14(d) is needed to
address numerous inquiries EEOC has received about whether an employer
that complies with regulations implementing the final Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules concerning wellness
program incentives, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will
be in compliance with the ADA.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires the EEOC to issue
regulations implementing title I of the Act. The EEOC initially issued
regulations in 1991 on the law's requirements and prohibited practices
with respect to employment and issued amended regulations in 2011 to
conform to changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
These proposed revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes
will benefit entities covered by title I of the ADA by generally
promoting consistency between the ADA and HIPAA, as amended by the ACA,
and result in greater predictability and ease of administration.
Risks:
The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers.
The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/20/15 80 FR 21659
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/19/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 77879]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-7031, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3046-AB01
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Regulatory Plan--October 2015
I. Mission and Overview
GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government by supplying
Federal purchasers with cost-effective, high-quality products and
services from commercial vendors providing workplaces for Federal
employees, overseeing the preservation of historic Federal properties,
providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S.
military, and providing State and local governments with law
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster
recovery products and services.
GSA's work is done through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS),
the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide
Policy (OGP).
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government and
leverages the buying power of the Government by consolidating Federal
agencies' requirements for common goods and services.
Public Buildings Service (PBS)
PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United
States, providing facilities and workspace solutions to more than 60
Federal agencies PBS' activities fall into two broad areas. The first
is space acquisition through both leases and construction. PBS
translates general needs into specific requirements, marshals the
necessary resources, and delivers the space necessary to meet the
respective missions of its Federal clients. The second area is
management of space. This involves making decisions on maintenance,
servicing tenants, and ultimately, deciding when and how to dispose of
a property at the end of its useful life.
Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)
OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real
property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory
information, and use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps
direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as
GSA's own acquisition programs.
OGP's policy regulations are described below:
Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Travel
Regulation)
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and
relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees. The FTR
is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory requirements and
executive branch policies for travel by Federal civilian employees and
others authorized to travel at Government expense.
Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Management
Regulation)
Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for
aircraft, transportation, personal property, real property, and mail
management. The FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property
Management Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory
policies originally found in the FPMR.
Office of Acquisition Policy (General Services Administration
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and the General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR))
GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and
services from its business partners are covered by the General Services
Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM
comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies
with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes
agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners
(e.g. prospective offerors and contractors) and acquisition of
leasehold interests in real property.
Federal Acquisition Regulation
On behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office
of Government-wide Policy, in conjunction with Department of Defense
(DOD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), write
and sign the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the rule book for
all federal agency procurements that governs the billions of contract
dollars expended by the Government every year.
II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
FTR Regulatory Priorities
In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FTR by:
Revising Chapter 301, Temporary Duty Travel, ensuring
accountability and transparency. This revision will ensure agencies'
travel for missions is efficient and effective, reduces costs, promotes
sustainability, and incorporates industry best practices at the lowest
logical travel cost.
Revising Chapter 302, Relocation Allowances for
miscellaneous items based on administrative changes, case decisions,
and agency review.
FMR Regulatory Priorities
In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
Revising rules regarding management of Federal real
property;
Revising rules regarding management of Federal personal
property.
Revising rules under management of mail and
transportation.
GSAR Regulatory Priorities
GSA plans, to update the GSAR to maintain consistency with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to implement streamlined and
innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA
contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering
contractual relationships. Current GSAR initiatives are focused on--
Providing consistency with the FAR;
Eliminating coverage that duplicates the FAR or creates
inconsistencies within the GSAR;
[[Page 77880]]
Rewriting sections that have become irrelevant because of
changes in technology or business processes or that place unnecessary
administrative burdens on contractors and the Government;
Streamlining or simplifying the regulation;
Rolling up coverage from the services and regions/zones
that should be in the GSAR, specifically targeting PBS's construction
contracting policies and the GSA Schedules Program;
Streamlining the evaluation process for contracts
containing commercial supplier agreements; and
Reviewing pricing practices for the GSA Schedules Program.
Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses
GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses that do or wish to do
business with the Federal Government. GSA is reviewing regulations that
govern the GSA Schedules program; approximately 17,300 businesses, most
of whom are small, have GSA Schedule contracts.
GSAR Case 2013-G504, Transactional Data Reporting and GSAR Case
2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules Administrative Changes are both of
interest to GSA proposed a rule to capture transactional data, and in
return eliminate the requirement for contractors to track prices
offered to the customer or class of customers designated for purposes
of the Price Reductions Clause. Among other benefits, GSA anticipates
this rule to result in a net burden reduction to GSA Schedule
contractors and reduce the need for costly, duplicative contract
vehicles, thereby reducing the barrier to entry for small businesses in
the Federal marketplace. GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules
Administrative Changes updates the GSA Schedules program to implement
long standing Schedules clauses that had previously never received
public comment.
Additionally, GSAR case 2015-G512 Unenforceable Commercial Supplier
Agreement Terms will propose a way to streamline the evaluation process
to award contracts containing commercial supplier agreements. By
streamlining this process, GSA anticipates reducing barriers to entry
for small businesses.
Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure
There are currently no regulations which promote open Government
and disclosure.
III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (July, 2015), the GSA retrospective
review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AI79............................. Federal Management Regulation
(FMR); FMR Case 2008-102-4,
Mail Management, Financial
Requirements for All Agencies.
3090-AI81............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2008-G509, Rewrite
GSAR 536, Construction and
Architect-Engineer Contracts
(Withdrawn).
3090-AI82............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2006-G506,
Environment, Conservation,
Occupational Safety, and Drug-
Free Workplace.
3090-AI95............................. Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
FTR Case 2009-307, Temporary
Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances
(Taxes); Relocation Allowances
(Taxes).
3090-AJ23............................. Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
FTR Case 2011-310; Telework
Travel Expenses Test Programs.
3090-AJ26............................. Federal Management Regulation
(FMR); FMR Case 2012-102-2;
Donation of Surplus Personal
Property.
3090-AJ27............................. Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
FTR Case 2012-301; Removal of
Conference Lodging Allowance
Provisions.
3090-AJ31............................. General Service Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2012-G503, Industrial
Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales
Reporting.
3090-AJ34............................. Federal Management Regulation
(FMR); FMR Case 2012-102-5,
Restrictions on International
Transportation of Freight and
Household Goods.
3090-AJ35............................. Federal Management Regulation
(FMR); FMR Case 2013-102-1;
Obligating Authority.
3090-AJ36............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2012-G501, Electronic
Contracting Initiative.
3090-AJ42............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2010-G511, Purchasing
by Non-Federal Entities.
3090-AJ46............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2013-G501;
Qualifications of Offerors.
3090-AJ47............................. General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2014-G501;
Progressive Awards and Monthly
Quantity Allocations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 18, 2015.
Christine Harada,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aim is to
increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that
contains it, and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic
organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (a Federally Funded Research and Development
Center), and several component installations which report to Center
Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and
control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters located in
Washington, DC.
NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2014
Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to ``Drive advances in science,
technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge,
education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the
Earth.'' The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, (available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2014 NASA Strategic Plan.pdf), guides NASA's
program activities through a framework of the following three strategic
goals:
Strategic Goal 1: Expand the frontiers of knowledge,
capability, and opportunity in space.
Strategic Goal 2: Advance understanding of Earth and
develop
[[Page 77881]]
technologies to improve the quality of life on our home planet.
Strategic Goal 3: Serve the American public and accomplish
our mission by effectively managing our people, technical capabilities,
and infrastructure.
In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering
capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and
benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and
technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.
International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``international
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in
Executive Order 13609, the President requires each executive agency to
include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international
regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to
lead to significant regulations.
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 by focusing efforts on controlling the
most critical products and technologies and by enhancing the
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. While
NASA does not have any regulations implementing this initiative, the
Agency does serve on the interagency review team in a consultative and
supportive role for this process, along with the Department of Defense,
the Department of State and the Department of Commerce.
In addition, NASA serves as one of the signatories to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1, contains
procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies.
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. section 1302 and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly
prepared, issued, and maintained by the Secretary of Defense, the
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, under their several statutory
authorities. NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through
the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. NASA finalized the
entire NFS rewrite initiative this year to eliminate unnecessary and
burdensome regulations, clarify regulatory language, and simplify
processes. More than 1.9 million hours of information collection
requirements (ICRs) were identified as no longer required and
duplicative of active FAR-level ICRs. Specifically, OMB control numbers
2700-0085, 2700-0086, and 2700-0087 were discontinued as part of the
NFS rewrite initiative. The Agency will continue to analyze the NFS to
implement procurement-related statutes, Executive orders, NASA
initiatives, and Federal procurement policy that streamline current
processes and procedures.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 ``Regulation and
Independent Regulatory Agencies'' (Jul. 11, 2011), NASA regulations
associated with its retrospective review and analysis are described in
the Agency's final retrospective plan of existing regulations. NASA's
final plan and updates can be found at