81 FR 94495 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2016
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
Page Range
94495-94701
FR Document
2016-29848
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 2016 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 2016 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 30 Federal agencies and 60 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 94495-94701]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29848]
[[Page 94495]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 247
December 23, 2016
Part II
Book 2 of 2 Books
Pages 94495-94908
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2016
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 /
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 94496]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2016
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 2016 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 2016 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans
of 30 Federal agencies and 60 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 2016 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 Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of 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 Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of 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
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board
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 94497]]
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 to 1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda
includes regulatory agendas from 62 Federal agencies. Agencies of the
United States Congress are not included.
The fall 2016 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.
Cabinet Departments
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *
Other Executive Agencies
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community ServiceCourt Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
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 Personnel Management *
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration *
Independent Agencies
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Transportation Safety Board
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
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.
[[Page 94498]]
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' signed August 4, 1999 (64 FR
43255), 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
[[Page 94499]]
intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate
these two 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
[[Page 94500]]
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 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
2015.
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.
EO--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.
PL (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, PL
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
[[Page 94501]]
sequence numbers if it appears in 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 17, 2016.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
[[Page 94502]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE 2016 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 2016 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 Plan
provides a list of important regulatory actions that agencies are
considering for issuance in proposed or final form during the 2017
fiscal year. In contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive list that
includes 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. Changed
circumstances, public comment, or applicable legal authorities could
affect an agency's decision about whether to go forward with a listed
regulatory action.
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
agencies can issue them. No regulatory action can become effective
until it has gone through the legally required processes, which
normally include public notice and comment. Any proposed or final
action must also satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes,
Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda.
Among other information, the Agenda provides an initial
classification of whether a rulemaking is ``significant'' or
``economically significant'' under the terms of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563. The Agenda might list a rule as ``economically significant''
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally, having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) because it
imposes costs, confers large benefits, affects significant budget
resources, or removes costly 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 agencies to reconsider regulatory
requirements. The retrospective review process 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 $37 billion in savings for the American public over the
next five years. Reflecting that focus, the current Agenda lists
numerous actions that retroactively review existing regulatory
programs. Since President Obama issued Executive Order 13610, this
Administration has worked to institutionalize retrospective review in
the federal agencies. In July 2016, 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 2017. OIRA has asked agencies to continue to emphasize
retrospective reviews in their latest Regulatory Plans.
As agencies advance the regulations detailed in this 2016
Regulatory Plan, OIRA will continue its efforts to ensure that our
regulatory system emphasizes, public participation, scientific
evidence, innovation, flexible regulatory approaches, and careful
consideration of costs and benefits. These considerations are meant to
produce a regulatory system that is driven by the best available
knowledge and evidence, attentive to real-world impacts, and is suited
to the evolving circumstances of the 21st Century.
Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. National Organic Program-- 0581-AD34 Proposed Rule Stage.
Organic Aquaculture
Standards.
2............................. NOP; Organic Livestock 0581-AD44 Final Rule Stage.
and Poultry Practices;.
3............................. Importation, Interstate 0579-AE15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Movement, and Release
Into the Environment of
Certain Genetically
Engineered Organisms.
[[Page 94503]]
4............................. Horse Protection; 0579-AE19 Final Rule Stage.
Licensing of Designated
Qualified Persons and
Other Amendments.
5............................. Tournament Systems and 0580-AB26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Poultry Growing
Arrangements.
6............................. Unfair Practices and 0580-AB27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Unreasonable Preference.
7............................. Clarification of Scope... 0580-AB25 Final Rule Stage.
8............................. Eligibility, 0584-AD87 Final Rule Stage.
Certification, and
Employment and Training
Provisions.
9............................. 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.
10............................ Enhancing Retailer 0584-AE27 Final Rule Stage.
Eligibility Standards in
SNAP.
11............................ Supplemental Nutrition 0584-AE45 Final Rule Stage.
Assistance Program
(SNAP) Photo Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT)
Card Implementation
Requirements.
12............................ Revision of the Nutrition 0583-AD56 Proposed Rule Stage.
Facts Panels for Meat
and Poultry Products and
Updating Certain
Reference Amounts
Customarily Consumed.
13............................ Modernization of Swine 0583-AD62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Slaughter Inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14............................ Endangered and Threatened 0648-BG20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Species; Critical
Habitat for the
Threatened Caribbean
Corals.
15............................ Designation of Critical 0648-BG26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Habitat for Threatened
Indo-Pacific Reef-
building Corals.
16............................ Magnuson-Stevens 0648-BF09 Final Rule Stage.
Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act;
Seafood Import
Monitoring Program.
17............................ Designation of Critical 0648-BF28 Final Rule Stage.
Habitat for the Gulf of
Maine, New York Bight,
and Chesapeake Bay
Distinct Population
Segments of Atlantic
Sturgeon.
18............................ Designation of Critical 0648-BF32 Final Rule Stage.
Habitat for the Carolina
and South Atlantic
Distinct Population
Segments of Atlantic
Sturgeon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage.
and Response Program
Procedures.
20............................ Identification (ID) Cards 0790-AJ37 Final Rule Stage.
for Members of the
Uniformed Services,
Their Dependents, and
Other Eligible
Individuals (Adding
Subpart D).
21............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AJ40 Final Rule Stage.
and Response (SAPR)
Program.
22............................ TRICARE; Reimbursement of 0720-AB47 Final Rule Stage.
Long Term Care Hospitals
and Inpatient
Rehabilitation
Facilities.
23............................ TRICARE: Refills of 0720-AB64 Final Rule Stage.
Maintenance Medications
Through Military
Treatment Facility
Pharmacies or National
Mail Order Pharmacy
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24............................ Title I of the Elementary 1810-AB27 Final Rule Stage.
and Secondary Education
Act of 1965--
Accountability and State
Plans.
25............................ Elementary and Secondary 1810-AB33 Final Rule Stage.
Education Act of 1965,
as Amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act--
Supplement Not Supplant
under Title I, Part A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for General
Service Lamps.
27............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Residential Non-
Weatherized Gas Furnaces
and Mobile Home Gas
Furnaces.
28............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD59 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Walk-In
Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers.
29............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AC11 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for
Manufactured Housing.
30............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD01 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Commercial
Packaged Boilers.
31............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD34 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Commercial
Water Heating Equipment.
[[Page 94504]]
32............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD52 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Dedicated-
Purpose Pool Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33............................ Confidentiality of 0930-AA21 Final Rule Stage.
Substance Use Disorder
Patient Records.
34............................ Control of Communicable 0920-AA63 Final Rule Stage.
Diseases.
35............................ Mammography Quality 0910-AH04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards Act;
Regulatory Amendments.
36............................ Patient Medication 0910-AH33 Proposed Rule Stage.
Information.
37............................ 340(B) Civil Monetary 0906-AA89 Final Rule Stage.
Penalties for
Manufacturers and
Ceiling Price
Regulations.
38............................ Definition of Human Organ 0906-AB02 Final Rule Stage.
Under Section 301 of the
National Organ
Transplant Act of 1984.
39............................ 340B Program Omnibus 0906-AB08 Final Rule Stage.
Guidelines.
40............................ Federal Policy for the 0937-AA02 Final Rule Stage.
Protection of Human
Subjects; Final Rules.
41............................ Eligibility Notices, Fair 0938-AS55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Hearing and Appeal
Processes for Medicaid,
and Other Provisions
Related to Eligibility
and Enrollment for
Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-
2334-P2).
42............................ FY 2018 Prospective 0938-AS96 Proposed Rule Stage.
Payment System and
Consolidated Billing for
Skilled Nursing
Facilities (SNFs) (CMS-
1679-P).
43............................ FY 2018 Inpatient 0938-AS97 Proposed Rule Stage.
Psychiatric Facilities
Prospective Payment
System--Rate Update (CMS-
1673-P).
44............................ FY 2018 Inpatient 0938-AS99 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rehabilitation Facility
(IRF) Prospective
Payment System (CMS-1671-
P).
45............................ FY 2018 Hospice Rate 0938-AT00 Proposed Rule Stage.
Update (CMS-1675-P).
46............................ CY 2018 Hospital 0938-AT03 Proposed Rule Stage.
Outpatient PPS Policy
Changes and Payment
Rates and Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment
System Policy Changes
and Payment Rates (CMS-
1678-P).
47............................ CY 2018 Changes to the 0938-AT04 Proposed Rule Stage.
End- Stage. Renal
Disease (ESRD)
Prospective Payment
System, Quality
Incentive Program, and
Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics,
Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS) (CMS-1674-P).
48............................ Eligibility Notices, Fair 0938-AS27 Final Rule Stage..
Hearing and Appeal
Processes for Medicaid,
and Other Provisions
Related to Eligibility
and Enrollment for
Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-
2334-F2).
49............................ CY 2017 Inpatient 0938-AS70 Final Rule Stage.
Hospital Deductible and
Hospital and Extended
Care Services
Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-
8062-N).
50............................ CY 2018 Inpatient 0938-AT05 Final Rule Stage.
Hospital Deductible and
Hospital and Extended
Care Services
Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-
8065-N).
51............................ Adoption and Foster Care 0970-AC47 Final Rule Stage.
Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS).
52............................ Flexibility, Efficiency, 0970-AC50 Final Rule Stage.
and Modernization of
Child Support
Enforcement Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53............................ Chemical Facility Anti- 1601-AA69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Terrorism Standards
(CFATS).
54............................ New Classification for 1615-AA67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Victims of Criminal
Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant
Status.
55............................ Requirements for Filing 1615-AB98 Proposed Rule Stage.
Motions and
Administrative Appeals.
56............................ Improvement of the 1615-AC07 Proposed Rule Stage.
Employment Creation
Immigrant Regulations.
57............................ Classification for 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Severe Forms
of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for
T Nonimmigrant Status.
58............................ Special Immigrant 1615-AB81 Final Rule Stage.
Juvenile Petitions.
59............................ International 1615-AC04 Final Rule Stage.
Entrepreneur.
60............................ Retention of EB-1, EB-2, 1615-AC05 Final Rule Stage.
and EB-3 Immigrant
Workers and Program
Improvements Affecting
Highly-Skilled H-1B
Nonimmigrant Workers.
61............................ Commercial Fishing 1625-AB85 Proposed Rule Stage.
Vessels--Implementation
of 2010 and 2012
Legislation.
62............................ Seafarers' Access to 1625-AC15 Final Rule Stage.
Maritime Facilities.
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............................ Surface Transportation 1652-AA56 Prerule Stage.
Vulnerability
Assessments and Security
Plans.
66............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
67............................ Vetting of Certain 1652-AA69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
68............................ Eligibility Checks of 1653-AA71 Proposed Rule Stage.
Nominated and Current
Designated School
Officials of Schools
That Enroll F and M
Nonimmigrant Students
and of Exchange Visitor
Program-Designated
Sponsors of J
Nonimmigrants.
[[Page 94505]]
69............................ Updates to Floodplain 1660-AA85 Final Rule Stage.
Management and
Protection of Wetlands
Regulations to Implement
Executive Order 13690
and the Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70............................ Floodplain Management and 2501-AD62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Protection of Wetlands;
Minimum Property
Standards for Flood
Hazard Exposure;
Building to the Federal
Flood Risk Management
Standard (FR-5717).
71............................ Notification, Evaluation 2501-AD77 Final Rule Stage.
and Reduction of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in
Federally Owned
Residential Property and
Housing Receiving
Federal Assistance;
Response to Elevated
Blood Lead Level (FR-
5816).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability:
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of State and Local
Governments.
73............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA63 Final Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability;
Movie Captioning and
Audio Description.
74............................ Revision of Standards and 1190-AA71 Final Rule Stage.
Procedures for the
Enforcement of Section
274B of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
75............................ Motions To Reopen 1125-AA68 Final Rule Stage.
Removal, Deportation, or
Exclusion Proceedings
Based Upon a Claim of
Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel.
76............................ Recognition of 1125-AA72 Final Rule Stage.
Organizations and
Accreditation of Non-
Attorney Representatives.
77............................ Implementation of the ADA 1105-AB50 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
Federally Assisted
Programs (Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78............................ Employment of Workers 1235-AA14 Proposed Rule Stage.
With Disabilities Under
Special Certificates.
79............................ Equal Employment 1205-AB59 Final Rule Stage.
Opportunity in
Apprenticeship Amendment
of Regulations.
80............................ Amendment to Claims 1210-AB39 Final Rule Stage.
Procedure Regulation.
81............................ Savings Arrangements 1210-AB76 Final Rule Stage.
Established by Political
Subdivisions for Non-
Governmental Employees.
82............................ Respirable Crystalline 1219-AB36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Silica.
83............................ Proximity Detection 1219-AB78 Proposed Rule Stage.
Systems for Mobile
Machines in Underground
Mines.
84............................ Preventing Workplace 1218-AD08 Prerule Stage.
Violence in Healthcare.
85............................ Infectious Diseases...... 1218-AC46 Proposed Rule Stage.
86............................ Standards Improvement 1218-AC67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Project IV.
87............................ Occupational Exposure to 1218-AB76 Final Rule Stage.
Beryllium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88............................ Airport Safety Management 2120-AJ38 Proposed Rule Stage.
System.
89............................ Pilot Professional 2120-AJ87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Development.
90............................ Revision of Airworthiness 2120-AK65 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Normal,
Utility, Acrobatic, and
Commuter Category
Airplanes (RRR).
91............................ National Goals and 2125-AF53 Final Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures 2 (MAP-21).
92............................ National Goals and 2125-AF54 Final Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures 3 (MAP-21).
93............................ Entry-Level Driver 2126-AB66 Final Rule Stage.
Training.
94............................ Tire Fuel Efficiency 2127-AK76 Proposed Rule Stage.
Consumer Information--
Part 2.
95............................ Heavy Vehicle Speed 2127-AK92 Proposed Rule Stage.
Limiters.
96............................ Federal Motor Vehicle 2127-AL55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Safety Standard (FMVSS)
150--Vehicle to Vehicle
(V2V) Communication.
97............................ Locomotive Recording 2130-AC51 Proposed Rule Stage.
Devices.
98............................ Risk Reduction Program... 2130-AC11 Final Rule Stage.
[[Page 94506]]
99............................ Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE66 Final Rule Stage.
of Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
100........................... Hazardous Materials: Oil 2137-AF08 Final Rule Stage.
Spill Response Plans and
Information Sharing for
High-Hazard Flammable
Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AP16 Proposed Rule Stage.
Disabilities: The
Genitourinary Diseases
and Conditions.
102........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP50 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V001, Parts 803,
814, 822).
103........................... VA Homeless Providers 2900-AP54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Grant and Per Diem
Program.
104........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP58 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V005, Parts 812,
813).
105........................... Diseases Associated With 2900-AP66 Proposed Rule Stage.
Exposure to Contaminants
in the Water Supply at
Camp Lejeune.
106........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP81 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles VAAR Case
2014-V004 (Parts 811,
832).
107........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP82 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V002, Parts 816,
828).
108........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AO19 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities: The
Hematologic and
Lymphatic Systems.
109........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AO44 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities: The
Endocrine System.
110........................... Fiduciary Activities..... 2900-AO53 Final Rule Stage.
111........................... Per Diem Paid to States 2900-AO88 Final Rule Stage.
for Care of Eligible
Veterans in State Homes.
112........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AP08 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities; Dental and
Oral Conditions.
113........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AP13 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities:
Gynecological Conditions
and Disorders of the
Breast.
114........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AP14 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities: The Organs
of Special Sense and
Schedule of Ratings--Eye.
115........................... Schedule for Rating 2900-AP27 Final Rule Stage.
Disabilities: Skin
Conditions.
116........................... Tiered Pharmacy 2900-AP35 Final Rule Stage.
Copayments for
Medications.
117........................... Advanced Practice 2900-AP44 Final Rule Stage.
Registered Nurses.
118........................... Expanded Access to Non-VA 2900-AP60 Final Rule Stage.
Care Through the
Veterans Choice Program.
119........................... Veterans Employment Pay 2900-AP72 Final Rule Stage.
for Success Grant
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120........................... Federal Baseline Water 2040-AF62 Prerule Stage.
Quality Standards for
Indian Reservations.
121........................... Renewables Enhancement 2060-AS66 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Growth Support Rule.
122........................... Implementation of the 2060-AS82 Proposed Rule Stage.
2015 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: Nonattainment
Area Classifications and
State Implementation
Plan Requirements.
123........................... Renewable Fuel Volume 2060-AT04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for 2018 and
Biomass Based Diesel
Volume (BBD) for 2019.
124........................... Trichloroethylene (TCE); 2070-AK03 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
125........................... N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) 2070-AK07 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Methylene Chloride;
Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
126........................... Trichloroethylene (TCE); 2070-AK11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a); Vapor
Degreasing.
127........................... Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2070-AK12 Proposed Rule Stage.
(PCBs); Reassessment of
Use Authorizations for
PCBs in Small Capacitors
in Fluorescent Light
Ballasts in Schools and
Daycares.
128........................... Procedures for Evaluating 2070-AK20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Existing Chemical Risks
Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
129........................... Procedures for 2070-AK23 Proposed Rule Stage.
Prioritization of
Chemicals for Risk
Evaluation Under the
Toxic Substances Control
Act.
130........................... Financial Responsibility 2050-AG61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements Under
CERCLA Section 108(b)
for Classes of
Facilities in the
Hardrock Mining Industry.
131........................... National Primary Drinking 2040-AF15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
132........................... Fees for Water 2040-AF64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Infrastructure Project
Applications Under the
Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation
Act.
133........................... National Emission 2060-AP26 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Subpart W: Standards for
Radon Emissions From
Operating Uranium Mill
Tailings: Review.
[[Page 94507]]
134........................... Revision of 40 CFR 192-- 2060-AP43 Final Rule Stage.
Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for
Uranium and Thorium Mill
Tailings and Uranium In
Situ Leaching Processing
Facilities.
135........................... Model Trading Rules for 2060-AS47 Final Rule Stage.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Electric Utility
Generating Units
Constructed on or Before
January 8, 2014.
136........................... Renewable Fuel Volume 2060-AS72 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for 2017 and
Biomass Based Diesel
Volume (BBD) for 2018.
137........................... Pesticides; Certification 2070-AJ20 Final Rule Stage.
of Pesticide Applicators.
138........................... Modernization of the 2050-AG82 Final Rule Stage.
Accidental Release
Prevention Regulations
Under Clean Air Act.
139........................... Credit Assistance for 2040-AF63 Final Rule Stage.
Water Infrastructure
Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
140........................... Affirmative Action for 3046-AA94 Final Rule. Stage.
Individuals With
Disabilities in the
Federal Government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141........................... Small Business Innovation 3245-AG64 Final Rule Stage.
Research Program and
Small Business
Technology Transfer
Program Policy Directive.
142........................... Small Business Investment 3245-AG66 Final Rule Stage.
Company (SBIC) Program--
Impact SBICs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG38 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Musculoskeletal
Disorders (3318P).
144........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG65 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Digestive
Disorders (3441P).
145........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG74 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Cardiovascular Disorders
(3477P).
146........................... Revising the Ticket to 0960-AH50 Proposed Rule Stage.
Work Program Rules
(3780A).
147........................... Revisions to Rules 0960-AH51 Proposed Rule Stage.
Regarding the Evaluation
of Medical Evidence.
148........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AH54 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Hearing
Loss and Disturbances of
Labyrinthine-Vestibular
Function (3806P).
149........................... Use of Electronic Payroll 0960-AH88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Data To Improve Program
Administration.
150........................... Treatment of Earnings 0960-AH90 Proposed Rule Stage.
Derived From Services.
151........................... Closure of Unintended 0960-AH93 Proposed Rule Stage.
Loopholes (Conforming
Changes to Regulations
on Presumed Filing and
Voluntary Suspension).
152........................... Revisions to Rules on 0960-AG56 Final Rule Stage.
Representation of
Parties (3396F).
153........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG71 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Human
Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) Infection and for
Evaluating Functional
Limitations in Immune
System Disorders (3466F).
154........................... Amendments to Regulations 0960-AH07 Final Rule Stage.
Regarding Withdrawals of
Applications and
Voluntary Suspension of
Benefits (3573F).
155........................... Revisions to Rules of 0960-AH63 Final Rule Stage.
Conduct and Standards of
Responsibility for
Appointed
Representatives.
156........................... Ensuring Program 0960-AH71 Final Rule Stage.
Uniformity at the
Hearing and Appeals
Council Levels of the
Administrative Review
Process.
157........................... Implementation of the 0960-AH95 Final Rule Stage.
NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007.
158........................... Availability of 0960-AI07 Final Rule Stage.
Information and Records
to the Public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Product Safety Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
159........................... Flammability Standard for 3041-AB35 Proposed Rule Stage.
Upholstered Furniture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94508]]
National Indian Gaming Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160........................... Class II Minimum Internal 3141-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Control Standards.
161........................... Minimum Internal Control 3141-AA55 Final Rule Stage.
Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162........................... Modified Small Quantities 3150-AJ70 Final Rule Stage.
Protocol [NRC-2015-0263].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Fall 2016 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 reflects USDA's 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. Under the Farm Bill authorities,
USDA will continue to build on historic economic gains in rural
America. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) provided the
authority for USDA to make genuine 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 over 6
million rural residents. 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 a final rule confirming the interim rule entitled
``Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees'' which published in
the Federal Register on June 9, 2016. The final rule implements the
statutory changes from the 2014 Farm Bill and facilitates greater
deployment of and access to broadband services in rural communities by
adjusting certain service area eligibility criteria, establishing new
priority considerations, and introducing new reporting sections that
require more detailed information gathering and publishing for both the
Agency and awardees. 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 is
developing a rule that will 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
final rule on December 16, 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 ensure that
farm program payments are made to the farmers and farm families that
they are intended to help. Specifically, as required by the 2014 Farm
Bill, FSA revised 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. For more information about
this rule, see RIN 0560-AI31.
The Federal Crop Insurance Program mitigates production and revenue
losses
[[Page 94509]]
from yield or price fluctuations and 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 a final rule on June 30, 2016, 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. For more information about this rule,
see RIN 0563-AC43.
The Packers and Stockyards Program promotes fair business practices
and competitive environments to market livestock, meat, and poultry.
Accordingly, and consistent with its oversight activities under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposes to establish criteria to be
considered in determining whether an undue or unreasonable preference
or advantage has occurred during contractual growing arrangements. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB27. Consistent with
the P&S Act, GIPSA also proposes to establish certain requirements when
using a ``tournament'' system for contract poultry growing. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB26. Finally, GIPSA proposes
to issue interim clarifying language on the list of unfair practices
between those that do not require a showing of harm to competition and
those that violate the P&S Act only with a finding of harm to
competition. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB25
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 2015, an estimated 115,233 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 March 10, 2016, NRCS published a final rule to implement provisions
of the 2014 Farm Bill that amended CSP. 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
June 3, 2016, NRCS published a final rule that implemented changes
mandated by 2014 Farm Bill and addressed 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). 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
[[Page 94510]]
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 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 Agricultural Service (FAS) published a final rule for
the Local and Regional procurement (LRP) Program on July 1, 2016 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. 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.
As part of an Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant
College Program Act (Act), the President signed a bill to amend the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to include subtitle E, the National
Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Pub. L. 114-216). The
legislation requires that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
establish a mandatory national bioengineered food disclosure standard
and the procedures necessary to implement the national standard within
two years of the enactment of the Act. Throughout the process, AMS will
engage consumers and industry stakeholders to ensure that the final
program is established effectively and with the utmost transparency.
AMS is currently preparing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
begin the rulemaking process for implementing the national
bioengineered food disclosure standards. For more information about
this action, see RIN 0581-AD54.
The AMS National Organic Program establishes national standards
governing the marketing of organically produced agricultural products.
These standards do not currently include organic farmed aquatic animals
in the United States which means that seafood currently sold as organic
in the United States is imported from other countries and certified to
private standards or other countries' standards. Accordingly, and based
on recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board, USDA is
proposing to establish standards for organic farmed aquatic animals and
their products. This would allow U.S. producers to compete in the
organic seafood market and may expand trade partnerships. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD34.
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 45 million Americans, more
than half of whom were children, the elderly, or individuals with
disabilities, put food on the table in 2015. The Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) plans to publish a final rule that works with States
interested in implementing photos on SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT) cards to ensure that the issuance of photo EBT cards does not
[[Page 94511]]
inhibit access to this critical nutrition assistance program. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE09.
Additionally, FNS plans to issue a final rule codifying 2008 Farm
Bill changes addressing SNAP eligibility, certification, and employment
and training provisions. 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. For more information
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AD87.
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. This objective represents FNS's efforts
to ensure that program benefits meet appropriate standards to
effectively improve nutrition for program participants, to improve the
diets of its clients through nutrition education, and to support the
national effort to reduce obesity by promoting healthy eating and
physical activity. The Department will finalize changes to eligibility
requirements for SNAP retail food stores to ensure access to nutritious
foods for home preparation and consumption for the families most
vulnerable to food insecurity. The final rule will consider the balance
of ensuring participant access to retail food stores with enhanced
stocking requirements. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0584-AE27.
FNS published a final rule on July 27, 2016, 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. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0584-AE09.
FNS published the final rule, Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the
Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, on July 8, 2016, 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. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE18.
FNS published a final rule, Local School Wellness Policy
Implementation and School Nutrition Environment Information, on July
27, 2016, 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. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE25.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continues to ensure
that meat and poultry products are properly marked, labeled, and
packaged, and prohibits the distribution in-commerce of meat or poultry
products that are adulterated or misbranded. FSIS is planning to
publish a proposed rule that would amend the nutrition labeling
requirements for meat and poultry products to better reflect scientific
research and dietary recommendations and to improve the presentation of
nutrition information to assist consumers in maintaining healthy
dietary practices. This rule will be consistent with the recent changes
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized for other food
products. This rule will ensure that nutrition information is presented
consistently across the food supply. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0583-AD56.
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 final rule on July 18, 2016, requiring non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter to be condemned and
promptly euthanized. 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. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-
AD54.
FSIS is also proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection
regulations to improve the effectiveness of swine slaughter inspection
by establishing a new inspection system for swine slaughter
establishments. The proposed New Swine Slaughter Inspection System
would facilitate pathogen reduction in pork products by permitting FSIS
to conduct more offline inspection activities that are more effective
in ensuring food safety; improving animal welfare and compliance with
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; and making better use of FSIS
resources. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD62.
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&
[[Page 94512]]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS). Requirements for the 0583-AD54.
Disposition of Non-Ambulatory
Disabled Veal Calves.
Animal Plant Health & Inspection Service Participation in the TBD.
(APHIS). International Trade Data
System (ITDS) via the
Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE).
FSIS.................................... Electronic Export Application 0583-AD41.
and Certification Fee.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).... Input Export Form Numbers Into TBD.
the Automated Export System.
AMS..................................... Revisions to the Electronic 0581-AD40.
Submission of the Import
Request of Shell Eggs.
APHIS................................... Forms for Declaration Mandated 0579-AD99.
by 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.
FNS..................................... Simplified Cost Accounting and 0584-AD84.
Other Actions to Reduce
Paperwork in the Summer Food
Service Program.
Rural Business Services (RBS)........... Biorefinery, Renewable 0570-AA73, 0570-0065.
Chemical, and Biobased Product
Manufacturing Assistance.
RBS..................................... Rural Energy for America 0570-AA76.
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
1. National Organic Program--Organic Aquaculture Standards
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This action proposes to establish standards for organic
production and certification of farmed aquatic animals and their
products in the USDA organic regulations. This action would also add
aquatic animals as a scope of certification and accreditation under the
National Organic Program (NOP).
Statement of Need: This action is necessary to establish standards
for organic farmed aquatic animals and their products which would allow
U.S. producers to compete in the organic seafood market. This action is
also necessary to address multiple recommendations provided to USDA by
the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). From 2007 through 2009,
the NOSB made five recommendations to establish standards for the
certification of organic farmed aquatic animals and their products.
Finally, the U.S. currently has organic standards equivalence
arrangements with Canada and the European Union (EU). Both Canada and
the EU established standards for organic aquaculture products. Because
the U.S.does not have organic aquaculture standards, the U.S. is unable
to include aquaculture in the scope of these arrangements. Establishing
U.S. organic aquaculture may provide a basis for expanding those trade
partnerships.
Summary of Legal Basis: AMS National Organic Program is authorized
by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) to establish
national standards governing the marketing of organically produced
agricultural products (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522). The USDA organic
regulations set the requirements for the organic certification of
agricultural products (7 CFR part 205).
Alternatives: An alternative to providing organic aquatic animal
standards would be to not publish such standards and allow aquatic
animal products to continue to be sold as organic based on private
standards or other countries' standards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost for existing conventional
aquaculture operations to convert and participate in this voluntary
marketing program generally would be incurred in the cost of changing
management practices, increased feed costs, and obtaining organic
certification. There also would be some costs to certifying agents who
would need to add aquaculture to their areas of accreditation under the
USDA organic regulations. These costs include application fees and
expanded audits to ensure certifying agents meet the accreditation
requirements needed to provide certification services to aquaculture
operations. By providing organic standards for organic aquatic animal
products, producers will be able to sell certified organic aquatic
animal products for a premium above the price of conventionally
produced seafood. Organic consumers will be assured that organic
aquatic animal products comply with the USDA organic regulations.
[[Page 94513]]
Risks: There are no known risks to providing these additional
standards for certification of organic products.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Agency Contact: Miles V. McEvoy, Deputy Administrator, USDA
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3252.
RIN: 0581-AD34
USDA--AMS
Final Rule Stage
2. NOP; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This action would establish standards that support
additional practice standards for organic livestock and poultry
production. This action would add provisions to the USDA organic
regulations to address and clarify livestock and poultry living
conditions (for example, outdoor access, housing environment and
stocking densities), health care practices (for example physical
alterations, administering medical treatment, euthanasia), and animal
handling and transport to and during slaughter.
Statement of Need: This action would establish standards that
support additional practice standards for organic livestock and poultry
production. This action would add provisions to the USDA organic
regulations to address and clarify livestock and poultry living
conditions (for example, outdoor access, housing environment and
stocking densities), health care practices (for example physical
alterations, administering medical treatment, euthanasia), and animal
handling and transport to and during slaughter.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is necessary to augment the
USDA organic livestock and poultry production regulations with robust
and clear provisions to fulfill an objective of the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (OFPA): To assure consumers that organically-
produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7 U.S.C.
6501). OFPA mandates that detailed livestock and poultry regulations be
developed through notice and comment rulemaking and intends for
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) involvement in that process (7
U.S.C. 6508(g)).
Alternatives: The alternative is that consumers will not have the
assurance that organically-produced products meet a consistent and
uniform standard as there will be continued inconsistency among organic
livestock producers. Nor will certifying agents be able to make
consistent certification decisions and facilitate fairness and
transparency for the organic producers and consumers that participate
in the market.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: AMS expects this rule to maintain
consumer confidence in the high standards represented by the USDA
organic seal. This action would promote consistency among certifying
agents to uniformly verify and enforce clear requirements for organic
livestock. AMS estimates that annualized benefits for increased or
sustained demand for organic products is $14.5 to $34 million per year.
The cost of implementing the rule would fall primarily on organic
poultry operations that may need to purchase and transition additional
land to organic production and modify existing poultry structures to
come into compliance with this rule. AMS estimates that the annualized
cost to the organic industry for this rule is $13 to 15.6 million per
year.
Risks: AMS expects that a few provisions among the numerous
proposed will be contentious.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/13/16 81 FR 21955
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/13/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Miles V. McEvoy, Deputy Administrator, USDA
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3252.
RIN: 0581-AD44
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
3. Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the Environment
of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 31
U.S.C. 9701
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 regarding the
regulation of GE organisms.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary in order to respond to
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the pest
risks posed by genetically engineered organisms, to evaluate
genetically engineered plants for noxious weed risk (an evaluation that
is not part of the current regulations), to respond to two Office of
Inspector General audits regarding APHIS' regulation of genetically
engineered organisms, and to respond to the requirements of the 2008
Farm Bill.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Plant Protection Act of 200, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
Alternatives: Alternatives that we considered were (1) to leave the
regulations unchanged; (2) to regulate all GE organisms as presenting a
possible plant pest or noxious weed risk, without exception, and with
no means of granting nonregulated status; or (3) to withdraw APHIS
regulations governing biotechnology and instead implement a voluntary
program under which developers would present genetically engineered
organisms to APHIS for an evaluation of their plant pest and noxious
weed risk, and organisms determined to be plant pests and/or noxious
weeds would be
[[Page 94514]]
regulated under other APHIS regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
Risks: Unless we issue this proposal, we may not be able to
regulate a genetically engineered plant that does not pose a plant pest
risk, but does pose a noxious weed risk. Additionally, as noted above,
the current regulations do not incorporate recommendations of two OIG
audits, and do not respond to the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill,
particularly regarding APHIS oversight of field trials and
environmental releases of genetically engineered organisms.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Gwendolyn Burnett, Agriculturalist, BRS, Department
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-3893.
RIN: 0579-AE15
USDA--APHIS
Final Rule Stage
4. Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and
Other Amendments
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823 to 1825; 15 U.S.C. 1828
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 11.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will amend training and licensing
requirements mandated by the horse protection regulations. We are also
making several changes to the responsibilities of show management of
horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions, as
well as changes to the list of devices, equipment, substances, and
practices that can cause soring or are otherwise prohibited under the
Horse Protection Act and regulations. Additionally, we are amending the
inspection procedures. These actions are intended to strengthen
existing requirements intended to eliminate soring and promote
enforcement of Horse Protection Act and regulations.
Statement of Need: Soring, the act of deliberately inducing pain in
a horse's feet to produce an exaggerated show gait, has been a
persistent practice within the Tennessee Walking Horse industry despite
regulations prohibiting it. Third party inspectors are currently
trained and licensed by horse industry organizations and conduct
inspections of horses at horse shows and exhibitions. In response to
public concerns about the ability of the Horse Protection Program to
prevent soring, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated an audit of APHIS'
oversight of the Horse Protection program and concluded that APHIS'
inspection program for inspecting gaited horses is not adequate to
ensure that horses are not being sored for the purposes of enhanced
performance. OIG recommended that APHIS eliminate the horse inspection
program in its current form and assume a direct involvement in the
accreditation and monitoring of inspectors and inspection procedures.
Under the proposed rule, all training and licensing of inspectors would
be conducted only by APHIS, and devices used to cause soring would be
further restricted or prohibited. APHIS is in agreement with these
recommendations but needs to amend the regulations through rulemaking
in order to adopt it.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4 of the Horse Protection Act, as
amended (15 U.S.C. 1823), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by the
management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction (referred to
below as show management) of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a
horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of
enforcing the Act. Section 9 (15 U.S.C. 1828) authorizes the Secretary
of Agriculture to issue such rules and regulations as deemed necessary
to carry out the provisions of the Act.
Alternatives: In following the recommendations of the USDA OIG
Audit, we believe the changes we proposed in this rulemaking represent
the best alternative option that would accomplish the stated objectives
and minimize impacts on small entities. In the proposed rule, we
welcomed comments from the public on other options, in particular the
viability of alternative approaches that would continue to rely on the
horse industry organization concept, and what the governance of such an
organization should be like.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule
are expected to justify the costs. The proposed changes to the horse
protection regulations would promote the humane treatment of walking
and racking horses by more effectively ensuring that those horses that
participate in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions are not sored.
This benefit is an unquantifiable animal welfare enhancement. The
proposed rule is not expected to adversely impact communities in which
shows are held since walking and racking horse shows are expected to
continue.
Risks: This rulemaking is intended to reduce the risk of horses
suffering pain and injury from the practice of soring without
restricting the activities of horse owners and organizations that have
no history of soring and for which the USDA does not consider soring to
be a concern.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/26/16 81 FR 49111
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/26/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Rachel Cezar, Supervisory Veterinary Medical
Officer, Horse Protection Coordinator, Animal Care, Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-3746.
RIN: 0579-AE19
USDA--GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION (GIPSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
5. Tournament Systems and Poultry Growing Arrangements
Priority: Other Significant.
[[Page 94515]]
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) plans to propose amending
part 201 of the Regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S
Act) (7 U.S.C. 181-229c) to address the use of tournament systems as a
method of payment and settlement grouping for poultry growers under
contract in poultry growing arrangements with live poultry dealers. The
proposed regulation would establish certain requirements to which a
live poultry dealer must comply if a tournament system is going to be
utilized to determine grower payment. A live poultry dealer's failure
to comply would be deemed an unfair, unjustly discriminatory and
deceptive practice according to factors outlined in the proposed rule.
Statement of Need: This proposed section 201.214 will establish
criteria that the Secretary may consider when determining whether a
live poultry dealer has used a poultry grower ranking system to
compensate poultry grower in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or
deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or unreasonable
prejudice or disadvantage. Proposed section 201.210(10) will link the
criteria to an unfair practice in violation of section 202(a) of the
P&S Act. These provisions are needed to protect poultry growers from
unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices and devices and
from undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. SUMMARY OF LEGAL
BASIS: Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that [t]he Secretary may
make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of this Act. This rule is necessary to carry out the
provisions of Section 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: GIPSA considered three regulatory
alternatives: Maintain the status quo and not propose the regulation;
propose a revised version of the proposed rule published in 2010; and
propose a revised version that would be phased in as existing contracts
expire, are replaced, or modified.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the annualized costs
of proposed regulation 201.211 to be less than $11 million. GIPSA
estimates the costs to be greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was
unable to quantify the benefits of the regulations. However, the
primary benefit of regulation 201.214 is the increased ability to
protect poultry growers from unfair practices associated with the use
of poultry grower ranking systems. GIPSA also expects that the
regulation will improve efficiencies and reduce market failures, by
increasing the amount of relevant information available to poultry
growers and reducing information asymmetries. Potential poultry growers
will make better informed business decisions regarding whether to enter
the industry and established poultry growers will make better informed
decisions regarding additional capital investments.
Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present
uncertainty that poultry growers face regarding treatment in a poultry
grower ranking system and the inefficient allocation of resources due
to incomplete information needed for business decisions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule....................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst,
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South,
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0580-AB26
USDA--GIPSA
6. Unfair Practices and Unreasonable Preference
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; 7 U.S.C. 181-229c
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Title XI of the 2008 Farm Bill required the Secretary of
Agriculture to issue a number of regulations under the P&S Act. Among
these instructions, the 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary to
identify criteria to be considered in determining whether an undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage has occurred in violation of the
P&S Act. In June of 2010, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) published a proposed rule addressing this
statutory requirement along with several other rules required by the
2008 Farm Bill. Proposed 201.211 to the regulations under the P&S Act
would have established criteria that the Secretary may consider in
determining if conduct would violate section 202(b) of the P&S Act
(undue or unreasonable preference or advantage). While many commenters
provided examples of similarly situated poultry growers and livestock
producers receiving different treatment, other commenters were
concerned about the impacts of the provision on marketing arrangements
and other beneficial contractual agreements. Beginning with the FY 2012
appropriations act, USDA was precluded from working on certain proposed
regulatory provisions related to the P&S Act, including criteria in
this proposal regarding undue or unreasonable preferences or
advantages. Consequently, GIPSA did not finalize this rule in 2011. The
prohibitions are not included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2016. This rulemaking is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements.
Section 201.210 will illustrate by way of examples types of conduct
GIPSA would consider unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive.
Statement of Need: This proposed rulemaking will establish a list
of practices that violate section 202(a) of the P&S Act without a
showing of harm to completion and establish criteria that the Secretary
will consider when determining whether a packer, swine contractor, or
live poultry dealer has engaged in conduct or action that constitutes
an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage in violation of
section 202(b) of the P&S Act. These provisions are needed to protect
livestock producers and poultry growers from unfair, unjustly
discriminatory or deceptive practices and devices and from undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage or undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage. The 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish criteria that the Secretary will consider in
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable
notice to poultry growers of any suspension of the delivery of birds
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and
if a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable
period of time for a poultry grower or a swine production contract
grower to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of
the poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract. GIPSA
published final rules establishing the
[[Page 94516]]
required criteria in December 2011. These regulations will link the
regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 11006 of the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) (2008 Farm Bill) required
GIPSA to establish criteria regarding: Undue or unreasonable preference
or advantage; suspension of delivery of birds under a poultry growing
arrangement; additional capital investments for poultry or swine
contracts; and reasonable period of time to remedy a breach of
contract. GIPSA issued final regulations for three of the four required
criteria on December 9, 2011. Section 201.210 of this rule, will link
the criteria to a violation of the section 202(a) of the Packers and
Stockyards Act. In addition, section 201.210 will identify other
conduct that GIPSA considers to be unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or
deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act without a
showing of harm to competition. Section 201.211 will establish criteria
for the remaining area undue or unreasonable preference or advantage.
Together, the regulations will complete the unfinished work from the
2008 Farm Bill. Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that [t]he
Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. This rule is
necessary to carry out the provisions of section 202(a) and (b) of the
P&S Act.
Alternatives: GIPSA considered three regulatory alternatives:
Maintain the status quo and not issue the regulations; issuing revised
versions of the proposed rule published in 2010 as proposed rules; and
proposing regulations that would be phased in as existing contracts
expire.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the cost to be
greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was unable to quantify the
benefits of the regulations. However, the primary benefit of
regulations 201.210 and 201.211 is the increased ability to protect
producers and growers through enforcement of the P&S Act for violations
of section 202(a) and/or (b) that do not result in harm or the
likelihood of harm to competition.
Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present
uncertainty that limits enforcement of section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S
Act. The clarification provided by this rulemaking will allow the
linkage of the regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act, which
is a substantial portion of the GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program's
mission.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule....................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst,
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South,
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0580-AB27
USDA--GIPSA
Final Rule Stage
7. Clarification of Scope
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In June of 2010, GIPSA published a proposal to amend
section 201.3 of the regulations issued under the Packers and
Stockyards Act (P&S Act), 1921, as amended. This proposed change
responds to guidance from the courts. The courts, in addressing
litigation brought by poultry growers alleging harm, have said that
GIPSA's statements regarding the appropriate application of subsections
202(a) and 202(b) are not entitled to deference in the absence of
regulation addressing whether the P&S Act prohibits all unfair
practices, or only those causing harm or a likelihood of harm to
competition. The amendment to 201.3 will establish GIPSA's
interpretation of the statute which will then be entitled to judicial
deference.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking will clarify the long held
position of the Department of Agriculture that it is not necessary in
all cases to demonstrate harm or likely harm to competition in order to
establish a violation of either Section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S Act.
Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that it was necessary for
plaintiffs to prove harm or likely harm to competition in cases
alleging unfair practices in violation of the P&S Act. The 2008 Farm
Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish criteria that
the Secretary will consider in determining whether a live poultry
dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and if a live poultry dealer or
swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a poultry
grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a breach of
contract that could lead to termination of the poultry growing
arrangement or swine production contract. GIPSA published final rules
establishing the required criteria in December 2011. However, to link
the regulatory criteria and a violation of the P&S Act, requires the
interpretation that it is not necessary to show harm to competition in
order to prove that a packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer
has committed an unfair practice in violation of the P&S Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that
[t]he Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. This rule is
necessary to carry out the provisions of section 202(a) and (b) of the
P&S Act.
Alternatives: GIPSA considered three regulatory alternatives:
Maintain the status quo and not issue the regulation; issuing
regulation as an interim final regulation; and issuing the regulation
as an interim final regulation but exempting small businesses.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the costs to be
greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was unable to quantify the
benefits of the regulation. However, the primary benefit of regulation
201.3 is the increased ability to protect producers and growers through
enforcement of the P&S Act for violations of section 202(a) and/or (b)
that do not result in harm or the likelihood of harm to competition.
Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present
uncertainty that limits enforcement of section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S
Act. The clarification provided by this rulemaking will allow the
linkage of the regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act, which
is a substantial portion of the GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program's
mission.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/22/10 75 FR 35338
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/22/10 .......................
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94517]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst,
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South,
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0580-AB25
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Final Rule Stage
8. Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; Pub. L. 104-121
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule amends the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to codify provisions
from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246)
(FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP applicants
and participants and SNAP employment and training.
Statement of Need: This rule amends the regulations governing SNAP
to implement provisions from the FCEA concerning the eligibility and
certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment
and training. In addition, this rule revises the SNAP regulations
throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the program name from the Food
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions
was October 1, 2008. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also
implementing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide
State agencies options that are available currently only through
waivers. These provisions allow State agencies to average student work
hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face
interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule will impact the associated
paperwork burdens.
Summary of Legal Basis: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110-246).
Alternatives: Most aspects of the rule are non-discretionary and
tied to specific requirements for SNAP in the FCEA, and others were new
program options the FCEA created that State agencies may include in
their administration of the program. FNS did consider alternatives
within these mandatory and optional FCEA provisions addressed in the
rule. For example, under the new optional provision implementing
section 4119 of the FCEA, Telephonic Signature Systems, FNS considered
what specific conditions must be satisfied for a signature to be
considered a spoken signature.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule estimated total
SNAP costs to the Government of the FCEA provisions proposed in the
rule to be $831 million in fiscal 2010 and $5.619 billion over the five
years of fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. The final rule will
present a revised cost analysis. There are many potential societal
benefits of this rule, including that certain provisions in the rule
will reduce the administrative burden for households and State
agencies.
Risks: The statutory and discretionary changes under consideration
would streamline program operations. The changes are expected to reduce
the risk of inefficient operations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/04/11 76 FR 25414
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/05/11 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: 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].
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-AD87
USDA--FNS
9. 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.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule codifies a provision of the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.
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 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.
[[Page 94518]]
Alternatives: Several alternatives were considered in the proposed
rule that were not incorporated into the final rule. Alternatives
included different options for the treatment of entrees and side dishes
that are served as part of a reimburseable meal, options for
establishing limits on the frequency of exempt fundraisers, options for
public comment on lower-calorie beverages for high school students, and
an option that considered prohibiting the sale of beverages with added
caffeine to high school students.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and
Budgetary Effects Statement: We expect 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 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 & Interim Final Rule.......... 07/29/16 81 FR 50131
Final Action........................ 03/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 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-AE09
USDA--FNS
10. 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: The final rule will address the criteria used to
authorize retail food stores for redemption of SNAP benefits.
Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act 2014 (2014 Farm Bill)
amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the required
amount of food that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores have
available on a continual basis from at least three varieties of items
in each of four staple food categories to a mandatory minimum of seven
varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase the
minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required
from two to three. This rule codifies these mandatory requirements.
Further, the rulemaking addresses depth of stock, redefines staple and
accessory foods, and amends 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)
prohibits 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: Alternative approaches to several discretionary
provisions are being considered based on commenter feedback on the
proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 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................................ 02/17/16 81 FR 8015
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/18/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
11. 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.
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 the SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card
contain a photo of one or more household members. The final 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.
[[Page 94519]]
Summary of Legal Basis: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq., 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: The final rule would mostly codify guidance issued in
December 2014. The Department considered not issuing any regulation on
photo EBT cards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes 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.
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: This rule will promulgate and expand on current program
guidance 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................................ 01/06/16 81 FR 398
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/07/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
12. Revision of the Nutrition Facts Panels for Meat and Poultry
Products and Updating Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.); Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 413.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Consistent with the recent changes that the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) finalized, the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry products
inspection regulations to update and revise the nutrition labeling
requirements for meat and poultry products to reflect recent scientific
research and dietary recommendations and to improve the presentation of
nutrition information to assist consumers in maintaining healthy
dietary practices. FSIS is proposing to (1) update the list of
nutrients that are required or permitted to be declared; (2) provide
updated Daily Reference Values (DRV) and Reference Daily Intake (RDI)
values that are based on current dietary recommendations from consensus
reports; and (3) amend the requirements for foods represented or
purported to be specifically for children under the age of four years
and pregnant and lactating women and establish nutrient reference
values specifically for these population subgroups. FSIS is also
proposing to revise the format and appearance of the Nutrition Facts
Panel; amend the definition of a single-serving container; require
dual-column labeling for certain containers; and update and modify
several reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs or reference
amounts). FSIS also is proposing to consolidate the nutrition labeling
regulations for meat and poultry products into a new Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part.
Statement of Need: On May 27, 2016, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) published two final rules: (1) ``Food Labeling:
Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels'' (81 FR 33742);
and (2) ``Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods that Can Reasonably be
Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily
Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments'' (81
FR 34000). FDA finalized these rules to update the Nutrition Facts
label to reflect new nutrition and public health research, to reflect
recent dietary recommendations from expert groups, and to improve the
presentation of nutrition information to help consumers make more
informed choices and maintain healthy dietary practices. FSIS has
reviewed FDA's analysis and, to ensure that nutrition information is
presented consistently across the food supply, FSIS will propose to
amend the nutrition labeling regulations for meat and poultry products
to parallel, to the extent possible, FDA's regulations. This approach
will help increase clarity of information to consumers and will improve
efficiency in the marketplace.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.).
Alternatives: FSIS is considering different alternatives for
presentation of nutrition information on the Nutrition Facts Panel.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These proposed regulations are
expected to benefit consumers by increasing and improving dietary
information available in the market. An estimate of the monetary
benefits from these market improvements can be obtained by calculating
the medical cost savings generated by linking information use to
improved consumer diets. In addition, FSIS believes that the public
would be better served by having the regulations governing nutrition
labeling consolidated in one part of title 9. Rather than searching
through two separate parts of title 9, CFR parts 317 and 381, to find
the nutrition labeling regulations, interested parties would only have
to survey one, part 413, to be able to apply nutrition panels to their
meat and poultry products. The proposed actions would necessitate the
majority of products to be relabeled. Firms would incur a one-time cost
for relabeling, recordkeeping costs, and costs associated with
voluntary reformulation.
[[Page 94520]]
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
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-AD56
USDA--FSIS
13. Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 301, 309, 310, and 314.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish
a new inspection system for swine slaughter establishments demonstrated
to provide greater public health protection than the existing
inspection system. The Agency is also proposing several changes to the
regulations that would affect all establishments that slaughter swine,
regardless of the inspection system under which they operate.
Statement of Need: The proposed action is necessary to improve food
safety; improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act;
improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter inspection; make
better use of the Agency's resources; and remove unnecessary regulatory
obstacles to innovation.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Alternatives: The Agency is considering alternatives such as: (1) A
mandatory New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) for market hog
slaughter establishments and (2) a voluntary NSIS for market hog
establishments, under which FSIS would conduct the same offline
inspection activities as traditional inspection.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total annualized value
of all mandatory costs to industry is approximately $0.74 million,
while total annualized value of all voluntary costs to industry is
approximately $11.66 million, assuming a 10 year annualization and a 3
percent discount rate. Estimated combined the total annualized costs to
industry is approximately $12.40 million ($0.77 + $11.66), assuming a
10 year annualization and a 3 percent discount rate. FSIS estimates
industry-wide adoption of the NSIS would reduce the number of human
illness attributed to products derived from market hog by an average of
about 2,621 Salmonella illnesses, which represents potential savings of
approximately $9.56 million annually. The Agency's budget is expected
to be impacted by changes to personnel and training requirements. The
estimated annualized value of the combined changes to the Agency's
budget is a net reduction of roughly $8.77 million, over 10 years
assuming a 3 percent discount rate. With the expected impact on the
Agency's budget included, and assuming all large and small exclusively
market hog establishments convert to NSIS, the rule is anticipated to
have a net benefit of approximately $4.97 million a year, annualized
over 10 years assuming a 3 percent discount rate.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Charles Williams, Director, Issuances Staff (IS),
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office
of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room
6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-5627,
Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD62
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,
[[Page 94521]]
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 pre-
regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2017. During the next year,
NOAA plans to publish five 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 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 2017, 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.
[[Page 94522]]
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 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 ESA. 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 five 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 five regulatory plan
actions is provided below.
1. 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.
2. Final Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine,
New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of
Atlantic Sturgeon (0648-BF28): The National Marine Fisheries Service
listed four distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as
endangered--and one distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as
threatened--under the Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This
rule would designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic
sturgeon.
3. Final Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Carolina and
South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (0648-
BF32): The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four distinct
population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered--and one
distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened--under the
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This action would designate
critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct
Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon, both listed as endangered.
4. Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for Threatened
Caribbean Corals (0648-BG20): On September 10, 2014, the National
Marine Fisheries Service listed 5 corals in the Caribbean as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. With this action, the National Marine
Fisheries Service proposes to designate critical habitat for the 5
Caribbean corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus, Orbicella annularis, Orbicella
faveolata, Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia ferox) and revises
critical habitat for the previously-listed corals Acropora palmata and
Acropora cervicornis. The proposed designation would cover coral reef
habitat containing essential features that support reproduction,
growth, and survival of the listed coral species.
5. Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for Threatened Indo-
Pacific Corals (0648-BG26): On September 10, 2014, the National Marine
Fisheries Service listed 15 species of reef-building corals in the
Indo-Pacific as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Of the 15
Indo-Pacific species listed, seven occur in U.S. waters of the Pacific
Islands Region, including in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas. With this
action, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to designate
critical habitat for the seven species in U.S. waters (Acropora
globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa,
Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata).
The proposed designation would cover coral reef habitat containing
essential features that support reproduction, growth, and survival of
the listed coral species.
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
[[Page 94523]]
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 2016
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; Military
Electronics; Toxicological agents; and Directed energy weapons. During
fiscal year 2015, BIS published a proposed rule that would add to the
CCL items related to: Fire control, range finder, optical and guidance
and control equipment, followed by a second proposed rule in fiscal
year 2016.
During fiscal year 2015, BIS initiated a process of evaluating the
effectiveness of its ECRI efforts by seeking public input on whether
the regulations are clear; do not inadvertently control, as military
items, items in normal commercial use; account for technological
developments; and properly implement the national security and foreign
policy objectives of the reform effort. The first review addressed the
first two categories of items added to the CCL by ECRI: Military
aircraft and gas turbine engines. After reviewing public comments, BIS
completed this review by publishing a final rule in fiscal year 2016.
In fiscal year 2016, BIS continued this review process with a notice
seeking public comment on implementation of ECRI with respect to
military vehicles, vessels of war, submersible vessels, oceanographic
equipment, and auxiliary and miscellaneous military equipment. BIS
anticipates continuing this series of notices after the public has had
time to develop experience with each regulation that added categories
of items to the CCL.
[[Page 94524]]
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 has moved 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. 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. The system, however, requires ongoing review and
maintenance for it to accomplish these objectives. Some technologies
are modified and become more sensitive or are applied to more sensitive
uses; others become more commercially available and warrant fewer
controls. The approach is novel and will require regular refinement to
further the objective of increasing interoperability with allies and
reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
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 published a rule effective in
September 2015 that removed the Special Comprehensive License
provisions from the EAR. These provisions had been rendered obsolete by
liberalizations to the individual licensing process, and their removal
not only streamlined the EAR but also achieved paperwork burden
reductions. More significantly, BIS, working with its colleagues in the
State Department, substantially updated and revised the key structural
definitions within the export control regulations. The effort is not
yet completed and substantial additional work is needed to harmonize,
update, and simplify the regulatory structure of the existing export
control system, which has been in place for decades without material
modification.
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/2016/04/05/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules.
DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
14. Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for
the Threatened Caribbean Corals
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed five
Caribbean corals in the Southeast Region as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act on October 10, 2014. Critical habitat shall be
specified to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time a
species is proposed for listing. We concluded that critical habitat was
not determinable for the five corals at the time of listing. However,
we anticipated that critical habitat would be determinable in the
future given on-going research. We, therefore, announced in the final
listing rules that we would propose critical habitat in separate
rulemakings. This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for the 5
newly-listed corals and revises critical habitat for the previously-
listed corals Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. A
[[Page 94525]]
separate rule is being prepared that would propose to designate
critical habitat for the 15 Indo-Pacific corals listed as threatened in
the same rule as the five Caribbean corals.
Statement of Need: This action would designate new critical habitat
for five corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus, Orbicella annularis, O.
faveolata, O. franksi, and Mycetophyllia ferox) and revise the 2008
critical habitat designation for two corals (Acropora palmata and A.
cervicornis) in accordance with section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act. This action follows from the listing of the five new species.
Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
Alternatives: NMFS evaluated alternatives including the impacts of
designating all and any parts of 38 (one for each species in each US
jurisdiction in which it occurs) units as critical habitat. Units 1 for
each species are the waters offshore Florida (generally Martin, Palm
Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties). Units 2 are the
waters surrounding the islands of Puerto Rico. Units 3 are the waters
surround the islands of St. Thomas and St. John, US Virgin Islands.
Units 4 are the waters surrounding the island of St. Croix, US Virgin
Islands. Units 5 are the waters surrounding the island of Navassa.
Units 6 are the waters within the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary, approximately 100 miles offshore of Texas in the Gulf of
Mexico. NMFS analyzed the economic, national security, and other
relevant impacts of designating critical habitat. NMFS will further
consider these impacts based on any relevant public and peer reviewer
comments regarding this proposed designation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of designation
is the protection afforded under section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, requiring all Federal agencies to insure their actions are not
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In
addition to these protections, the designation may also result in other
forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational awareness
and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, and improved
or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically associated with the
designation of critical habitat stem mainly from Federal agencies
requirement to consult with NMFS, under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, to insure that any action they carry out, permit
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed corals will
not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, posing a legal
risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued existence and
recovery.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400
RIN: 0648-BG20
DOC--NOAA
15. Designation of Critical Habitat for Threatened Indo-
Pacific Reef-Building Corals
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 10, 2016, Statutory
deadline for final critical habitat designation of listed Indo-Pacific
corals.
Abstract: On September 10, 2014, the National Marine Fisheries
Service listed 20 species of reef-building corals as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act, 15 in the Indo-Pacific and five in the
Caribbean. Of the 15 Indo-Pacific species, seven occur in U.S. waters
of the Pacific Islands Region, including in American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island
Areas. This proposed rule would designate critical habitat for the
seven species in U.S. waters (Acropora globiceps, Acropora
jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa,
Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata). A separate proposed
rule is being prepared to designate critical habitat for the listed
Caribbean coral species. The proposed designation would cover coral
reef habitat around 13 island or atoll units in the Pacific Islands
Region, including three in American Samoa, one in Guam, seven in the
Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and two in Pacific Remote Island
Areas, containing essential features that support reproduction, growth,
and survival of the listed coral species.
Statement of Need: This action would designate new critical habitat
for seven corals (Acropora globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora
retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis,
and Seriatopora aculeata) in accordance with section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act. This action follows from the listing of the
seven new species.
Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
Alternatives: NMFS evaluated alternatives including the impacts of
designating all and any parts of 19 islands within the U.S.
jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas as units of
proposed critical habitat for the seven listed corals, including: (1)
Tutuila & Offshore Banks; (2) Ofu & Olosega; (3) Ta'u; (4) Rose Atoll;
(5) Guam & Offshore Banks; (6) Rota; (7) Aguijan; (8) Tinian and
Tatsumi Reef; (9) Saipan and Garapan Bank; (10) Farallon de Medinilla;
(11) Anatahan; (12) Pagan; (13) Maug Islands & Supply Reef; (14)
Howland Island; (15) Palmyra Atoll; (16) Kingman Reef; (17) Johnston
Atoll; (18) Wake Atoll; and (19) Jarvis Island. NMFS analyzed the
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of designating
critical habitat. NMFS will further consider these impacts based on any
relevant public and peer reviewer comments regarding this proposed
designation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of designation
is the protection afforded under section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, requiring all Federal agencies to insure their actions are not
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In
addition to these protections, the designation may also result in other
forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational awareness
and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, and improved
or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically associated with the
designation of critical habitat stem mainly from Federal agencies
requirement to consult with NMFS, under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, to insure that any action they carry out, permit
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed corals will
not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, posing a legal
risk to the
[[Page 94526]]
agency and a risk to the species continued existence and recovery.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
RIN: 0648-BG26
DOC--NOAA
Final Rule Stage
16. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; Seafood
Import Monitoring Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1857
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300; 50 CFR 600.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on
Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood
Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and
State, published its action plan to implement Task Force
recommendations for a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to
combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud.
The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create
and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and
non-governmental organizations, and create a traceability program to
track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce, including the
use of existing traceability mechanisms. As part of that plan, the
National Marine Fisheries Service proposes regulatory changes to
improve the administration of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act prohibition on the entry into
interstate or foreign commerce of any fish taken in violation of any
foreign law or regulation. The rule includes adjustments to permitting
and reporting requirements to provide for traceability of seafood
products offered for entry into the U.S. supply chain, and to ensure
that these products were lawfully acquired and are properly labeled.
Requirements for an international trade permit and reporting on the
origin of certain imported or exported fishery products were previously
established by regulations applicable to a number of specified fishery
products. This rulemaking would extend those existing permitting and
reporting requirements to additional fish species and seafood products.
Statement of Need: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act prohibits the importation and trade in interstate
commerce of fishery products from fish caught in violation of any
foreign law or regulation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking that would diminish
the incentives for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing would be
through cooperation and assistance programs. While the U.S. has
developed effective fisheries management and enforcement techniques and
applied these in many fisheries, there is no guarantee that these
methods will be widely adopted in foreign fisheries. Technical and
financial assistance for the development and implementation of
monitoring, control and surveillance measures would not be precluded by
this rulemaking, but market access incentives will increase the
likelihood of action by harvesting nations exporting to the U.S.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Potential benefits of this
rulemaking include: An incentive for exporting nations to adopt and
implement fisheries regulatory and enforcement standards, including
monitoring, control and surveillance measures that are comparable to
the U.S. as a condition for access to the U.S. seafood market, enhanced
fisheries conservation for shared and transboundary stocks, especially
high seas stocks, and a safe and sustainable seafood supply for the
U.S. market. Anticipated costs include: Increased administrative costs
to the U.S. government for monitoring U.S. imports and making
determinations about lawful acquisition of fisheries products;
increased requests for international cooperation and assistance to
implement fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance measures.
Additionally, U.S. importers and fish processors may incur incremental
costs for recordkeeping and reporting.
Risks: Prohibiting imports from seafood exporting nations for which
lawful acquisition cannot be established will diminish the risk of
further declines in global fisheries stocks that are affected by
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/05/16 81 FR 6210
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/05/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Agency Contact: John Henderschedt, Director, Office for
International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East West
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0648-AX63
RIN: 0648-BF09
DOC--NOAA
17. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic
Sturgeon
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 30, 2016, per consent decree
entered December 3, 2014, and modified by a November 9, 2015, order.
Following a complaint from the Natural Resources Defense Council
and Delaware Riverkeeper Network, we agreed to submit this proposed
rule to the Federal Register by November 30, 2015 for publication.
Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered and one
distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This rule would designate
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake
Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon. A separate rule
would designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon.
Statement of Need: The Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and
[[Page 94527]]
Chesapeake Bay distinct population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon
were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in February 2012.
Section 4 of the ESA requires that critical habitat be specified to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time a species is listed
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA also requires that we publish final
critical habitat rules within one year of proposed rules. At the time
the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed, we were unable to determine
what areas met the statutory definition of critical habitat. We
subsequently published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for these DPSs on June 3, 2016. Under an existing court-ordered
settlement agreement, we are required to publish final critical habitat
designations by June 3, 2017--one year from the date of publication of
the proposed rules.
Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act and court-ordered
settlement agreement.
Alternatives: During the formulation of the final rule, pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, we will evaluate the impacts of designating
all and any parts of the proposed critical habitat. We are required to
analyze the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of
designating critical habitat. Through this process, we have discretion
to exclude areas from the final designation as long as such exclusions
do not result in the extinction of Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Based on our
draft impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule, we did not exclude
any portions of the proposed critical habitat. We also completed an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and analyzed a no action
alternative, an alternative in which some of the identified critical
habitat areas are designated, and an alternative in which all critical
habitat areas identified for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon are designated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of critical
habitat designation is the protection afforded under section 7 of the
ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to insure their actions are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
In addition to these protections, the designation may also result in
other forms of benefits including, but not limited to: educational
awareness and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation,
and improved or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically
associated with the designation of critical habitat stem mainly from
the requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS, under section
7 of the ESA, to insure that any action they carry out, permit
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed Atlantic
sturgeon will not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA,
posing a legal risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued
existence and recovery.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/03/16 81 FR 35701
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/01/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 09/29/16 81 FR 66911
Comment Period End.................. 10/14/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 06/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
RIN: 0648-BF28
DOC--NOAA
18. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic
Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 30, 2016, Per consent decree
entered December 3, 2014, and modified by a November 9, 2015, order.
Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered--and
one distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened--under the
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This action proposes to
designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct
Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon, both listed as endangered.
Statement of Need: The Carolina and south Atlantic distinct
population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon were listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in February 2012. Section 4 of the ESA
requires that critical habitat be specified to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable at the time a species is listed (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA also requires that we publish final critical
habitat rules within one year of proposed rules. At the time the
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed, we were unable to determine what
areas met the statutory definition of critical habitat. We subsequently
published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these DPSs
on June 3, 2016. Under an existing court-ordered settlement agreement,
we are required to publish final critical habitat designations by June
3, 2017--one year from the date of publication of the proposed rules.
Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act and court-ordered
settlement agreement.
Alternatives: During the formulation of the final rule, pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, we will evaluate the impacts of designating
all and any parts of the proposed critical habitat. We are required to
analyze the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of
designating critical habitat. Through this process, we have discretion
to exclude areas from the final designation as long as such exclusions
do not result in the extinction of Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Based on our
draft impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule, we did not exclude
any portions of the proposed critical habitat. We also completed an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and analyzed a no action
alternative, an alternative in which some of the identified critical
habitat areas are designated, and an alternative in which all critical
habitat areas identified for the Carolina and south Atlantic DPSs of
Atlantic sturgeon are designated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of critical
habitat designation is the protection afforded under section 7 of the
ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to insure their actions are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
In addition to these protections, the designation may also result in
other forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational
awareness and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation,
and improved or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically
associated with the designation of critical habitat stem mainly from
the requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS,
[[Page 94528]]
under section 7 of the ESA, to insure that any action they carry out,
permit (authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed Atlantic
sturgeon will not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA,
posing a legal risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued
existence and recovery.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/03/16 81 FR 36077
Correction.......................... 06/28/16 81 FR 41926
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/01/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 09/29/16 81 FR 66911
Comment Period End.................. 10/14/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 06/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
RIN: 0648-BF32
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 1,329,949 military personnel and 878,527 civilians
assigned as of June 30, 2016, 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, present 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 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 Executive Order
12866, there must be coordination of proposed regulations among the
regulatory agencies and the affected DoD components. Coordinating the
proposed regulations in advance throughout an organization as large as
DoD is a straightforward, yet formidable, undertaking.
DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and that
can be significant as defined in Executive Order 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 in a constrained fiscal
environment. DoD, as a matter of overall priority for its regulatory
program, fully incorporates the provisions of the President's
priorities and objectives under Executive Order 12866.
International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation'' of May 1, 2012, ``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.
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 Executive Order 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0702-AA71.......................... Army Privacy Program
[[Page 94529]]
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 (DFARS Case
2014-D025)
0750-AI58.......................... Detection and Avoidance of
Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation (DFARS Case
2014-D005)
0750-AI76.......................... Duty-Free Entry Threshold (DFARS
Case 2015-D036)
0750-AI85.......................... Prohibition on Requiring the Use of
Fire-Resistant Rayon Fiber (DFARS
Case 2016-D012)
0790-AI19.......................... Service Academies
0790-AI42.......................... Personnel Security Program
0790-AI54.......................... Defense Support of Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies
0790-AI63.......................... Alternative Dispute Resolution
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
0790-AI88.......................... Shelter for the Homeless
0790-AI90.......................... DoD Assistance to Non-Government,
Entertainment-Oriented Media
Productions
0790-AI94.......................... Public Affairs Liaison with
Industry
0790-AI98.......................... Professional U.S. Scouting
Organizations Operating at U.S.
Military Installations Overseas
0790-AJ00.......................... Civilian Employment and
Reemployment Rights of Applicants
for, and Service Members and
Former Service Members of, the
Uniformed Services
0790-AJ03.......................... DoD Privacy Program
0790-AJ06.......................... Voluntary Education Programs
0790-AJ07.......................... Historical Research in the Files of
the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD)
0790-AJ10.......................... Enhancement of Protections on
Consumer Credit for Members of the
Armed Forces and Their Dependents
0790-AJ11.......................... Defense Materiel Disposition
0790-AJ19.......................... Background Checks on Individuals in
DoD Child Care Services Programs
0790-AJ28.......................... National Language Service Corps
(NLSC)
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) rule:
Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud
Services (DFARS case 2013-D018). This final rule implements section 941
of the National Defense Authorization Act (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.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule:
Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015-
D035). This rule amends the DFARS to expand the prescription for use of
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, Government
Property. This clause requires contractors to comply with basic
property receipt and record
[[Page 94530]]
keeping requirements in order for the Government to track, report, and
manage Government-furnished property. Currently, this clause is not
required for use in purchase orders for repair when the unit
acquisition cost of Government property to be repaired does not exceed
the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT). However, acquisition value
alone is not an indicator of the criticality or sensitivity of
Government property items. For example, firearms, body armor, night
vision equipment, computers or crypto-logical devices may individually
all be below the SAT, but accountability of these items is of vital
importance. Lack of the use of the Government property clause in these
instances significantly increases the risk of misuse or loss of
Government property. In order to strengthen the management and
accountability of Government-furnished property (GFP), this rule
proposes to amend the DFARS to require use of the Government property
clause in these instances, regardless of the acquisition value.
2. Rulemakings that promote open Government and use disclosure as a
regulatory tool.
The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule:
Promoting Voluntary Post-Award Disclosure of Defective
Pricing (DFARS Case 2015-D030). In response to the Better Buying Power
2.0 initiative on ``Eliminating Requirements Imposed on Industry where
Costs Outweigh Benefits,'' contractors recommended that DoD clarify
policy guidance to reduce repeated submissions of certified cost or
pricing data. Frequent submissions of such data are used as a defense
against defective pricing claims by DoD after contract award, since
data that are frequently updated are less likely to be considered
outdated or inaccurate and, therefore, defective. Better Buying Power
3.0 called for a revision of regulatory guidance regarding the
requirement for contracting officers to request an audit, even if a
contractor voluntarily discloses defective pricing after contract
award. This rule amends the DFARS to stipulate that DoD contracting
officers shall request a limited-scope audit when a contractor
voluntarily discloses defective pricing after contract award, unless a
full-scope audit is appropriate for the circumstances.
3. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rules--
Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive
Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS Case 2015-D013). This rule
amends the DFARS to implement 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 1991 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 will amend the DFARS to: (1) Extend the Test Program through
December 31, 2017; (2) implement new reporting requirements for program
participants; (3) require contracting officers to consider an offerors
failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its CSP in past
performance evaluations; and (4) establish procedures for the
assessment of liquidated damages. 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.
Amendment to Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (DFARS
Case 2016-D011). This rule amends the DFARS to implement section 861 of
the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), which provides amendments to the
Pilot Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (``the Program'').
Specifically, section 861 requires mentor firms participating in the
Program to report additional information on the assistance they have
provided to their prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms, the success this
assistance has had in addressing the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm's
developmental needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and any problems
encountered. The new reporting requirements apply retroactively to
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements entered into before, on, or
after the date of enactment of the NDAA for FY 2016 (enacted November
25, 2015). DoD's OSBP will use the information reported by mentors to
support decisions regarding continuation of particular mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements. In addition, section 861 adds new
eligibility criteria for mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; limits
the period of time a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can participate in the
Program; limits the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements
to which a prot[eacute]g[eacute] can be a party; and extends the
Program for three years. This rule amends DFARS to implement the new
reporting requirements and other Program amendments.
The Department plans to reissue the Nationwide Permits--
Department of the Army (DA) permits are required for
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
and any structures or other work that affect the course, location, or
condition of navigable waters of the United States. Small businesses
proposing to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States and/or install structures or do work in navigable waters
of the United States must obtain DA permits to conduct those
activities, unless a particular activity is exempt from those permit
requirements. Individual permits and general permits can be issued by
the Corps to satisfy the permit requirements of these two statutes.
Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a form of general permit issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that authorize activities that
have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse
environmental effects. The NWPs provide a streamline authorization
process for small businesses to fulfill DA permit requirements.
Nationwide permits can only be issued for a period of no more than five
years. The issuance and reissuance of NWPs must be done every five
years to continue the NWP program. Currently, there are 50 NWPs, and
those NWPs expire on March 18, 2017. In addition to proposing to
reissue all of the 50 existing NWPs, the Corps is also proposing to
issue two new NWPs. The Corps plans on issuing the final NWP rule
before the current NWPs expire so that NWPs will continue to be
available to small businesses and other regulated entities.
4. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified
burdens, and minimize burdens on small businesses.
The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
Pilot Program for Streamlining Awards for Innovative
Technology Projects (DFARS Case 2016-D016). This rule proposes to amend
the DFARS to implement section 873 of the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L.
114-92). Section 873 provides the following exception from certified
cost and pricing data requirements for contracts, subcontracts, or
modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5
million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense
contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure
(e.g., broad agency announcement) or the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) Program. In
[[Page 94531]]
addition, section 873 provides an exception from the records
examination requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2313 for contracts valued at less
than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense
contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure
(e.g., broad agency announcement) or the SBIR Program. However, section
873 also provides authority in certain circumstances to determine that
submission of cost and pricing data or auditing of records should be
required based on past performance of the specific small business or
nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information
specific to the award. These exceptions end on October 1, 2020.
The Department plans to reissue the Nationwide Permits--
As discussed above, nationwide permits (NWPs) are a form
of general permit issued by the Corps that authorizes activities that
require DA authorization and have no more than minimal individual and
cumulative adverse environmental effects. The Corps plans to reissue
the 50 existing NWPs and issue two new NWPs. Unlike individual permits,
NWPs authorize activities without the requirement for public notice and
comment on each proposed activity, which reduces burdens on small
businesses and streamlines the authorization process. In FY 2015, the
Corps issued approximately 31,700 NWP verifications, with an average
processing time of 41 days. In FY 2015, the Corps issued approximately
1,700 standard individual permits, with an average processing time of
211 days. The proposed NWPs were published in the Federal Register on
June 1, 2016, for a 60-day comment period. The Corps plans on
finalizing the NWPs before the current NWPs expire on March 18, 2017.
The costs for obtaining authorization under an NWP are low compared to
the standard individual permit process, both in terms of financial
costs and the time it takes to obtain the required authorization.
5. 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--
Enhancing Independent Research and Development Efforts
(DFARS Case 2016-D002). This rule will amend the DFARS to improve the
effectiveness of independent research and development (IR&D)
investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as
allowable costs. Specifically, DoD is revising DFARS 231.205-18,
Independent Research and Development and Bid and Proposal Costs, to
require that proposed new independent research and development (IR&D)
efforts be communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to the
initiation of these investments, and that results from these
investments should also be shared with appropriate DoD personnel. IR&D
investments need to meet the complementary goals of providing defense
companies an opportunity to exercise independent judgement on
investments in promising technologies that will provide a competitive
advantage, including the creation of intellectual property, while at
the same time pursuing technologies that may improve the military
capability of the United States. These efforts can have the best
payoff, both for DoD and for individual performing companies, when the
Government is well informed of the investments that companies are
making, and when companies are well informed about related investments
being made elsewhere in the Government's research and development
portfolios and about Government plans for potential future acquisitions
where this IR&D may be relevant.
Specific DoD Priorities: For this regulatory plan, there are six
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, personnel benefits, 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, for example: (1) Implementing the new convention to
construct clauses with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate
clauses are included in full-text; and (2) removing obsolete reporting
or other requirements imposed on contractors. Such improvements ensure
that contracting officers, contractors, and offerors have a clear
understanding of the rules for doing business with the Department.
Obtain early engagement with industry on procurement
topics of high public interest by, for example: (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) updating certain evaluation thresholds
based on the consumer price index; (2) allowing contractors to display
one DoD Inspector General hotline poster instead of three; and (3)
revising the DD Form 1547, Record of Weighted Guidelines, to provide a
more transparent means of documenting costs incurred during the
undefinitized period of an undefinitized contract action.
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
[[Page 94532]]
care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a
manner consistent with the law, industry 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 rules--
Final Rule: Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)/TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance
Medications Through Military Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National
Mail Order Pharmacy Program. This final rule implements Section 702(c)
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning
October 1, 2015; the pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible
covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic prescription
maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies
or the national mail-order pharmacy program. Section 702(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates
the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE
For Life Pilot Program described in Section 716(f) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program
which began in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to
refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through
military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order
pharmacy program. TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in
the Medicare wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This
rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring
covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This rule has
been identified as an economically significant rule. DoD anticipates
publishing the final rule in the first quarter of FY 2017.
Final Rule: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care
Hospitals and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities. The Department of
Defense, Defense Health Agency, is revising its reimbursement of Long
Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs) and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities
(IRFs). Revisions are in accordance with the statutory provision at
title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1079(i)(2) that requires
TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the
extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as
apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under
Medicare. 32 CFR 199.2 includes a definition for ``Hospital, long-term
(tuberculosis, chronic care, or rehabilitation).'' This rule deletes
this definition and creates separate definitions for ``Long Term Care
Hospital'' and ``Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'' in accordance with
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) classification
criteria. Under TRICARE, LTCHs and IRFs (both freestanding
rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation hospital units) are
currently paid the lower of a negotiated rate (if they are a network
provider) or billed charges (if they are a non-network provider).
Although Medicare's reimbursement methods for LTCHs and IRFs are
different, it is prudent to adopt both the Medicare LTCH and IRF
Prospective Payment System (PPS) methods simultaneously to align with
our statutory requirement to reimburse like Medicare. This rule sets
forth the proposed regulation modifications necessary for TRICARE to
adopt Medicare's LTCH and IRF Prospective Payment Systems and rates
applicable for inpatient services provided by LTCHs and IRFs to TRICARE
beneficiaries. This rule has been identified as an economically
significant rule. DoD anticipates publishing the final rule in the
third quarter of FY 2017.
3. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish the following rules--
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 final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
Final Rule: 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 reports, 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 final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
Final Rule: Identification (ID) Cards for Members of the
Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals.
Among the Obama Administration regulatory priorities are rules which
extend fairness and tolerance to all Americans. The Department of
Defense (DoD) previously published an interim final rule that extended
benefits to all eligible dependents of uniformed Service members and
eligible DoD civilians. It was necessary to publish an amended interim
final rule to ensure the issuance of ID cards and extension of benefits
aligns with current Federal and DoD policy, and to include an
additional implementing manual addressing eligibility documentation
requirements. The final rule incorporates all comments received during
the public comment process that were adjudicated by the Department as
necessary changes to the rule. DoD anticipates publishing the final
rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
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. The DoD-DIB CS Activities regulation mandates
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. This interim final rule will
modify eligibility criteria to permit greater participation in the
voluntary DoD-DIB CS information sharing program. Expanding
participation in the DoD-DIB CS information sharing program is part of
DoD's comprehensive approach to counter cyber threats through
information sharing between the Government and DIB participants. The
[[Page 94533]]
DoD-DIB CS information sharing program allows eligible DIB participants
to receive Government furnished information (GFI) and cyber threat
information from other DIB participants, thereby providing greater
insights into adversarial activity targeting the DIB. DoD anticipates
publishing the interim final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Final Rule Stage
19. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-239; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L. 113-291;
Pub. L. 114-92
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will provide sexual assault victims the ability
to get a fresh start through an Expedited Transfer policy aimed at
removing the stigma associated with victimization. It will also allow
sexual assault victims to be notified of the protections and support
that come with individual legal representation as they navigate the
criminal justice process. With this rule Reserve Component and National
Guard members who are victims of sexual assault would receive the same
SAPR advocacy regardless of when the sexual assault incident occurred,
similar to the advocate support afforded their active duty
counterparts. The goal of this rule is to ensure victims of sexual
assault receive improved victim advocacy support, quality health care
service, appropriate and sensitive command involvement, individualized
legal support, and a military culture better informed on the issue of
sexual assault. This rule establishes the SAFE Helpline as the sole DoD
hotline for crisis intervention; establishes requirements for a sexual
assault victim safety assessment and the execution of a high-risk team
to monitor cases where the sexual assault victim's life and safety may
be in jeopardy; and incorporates several requirements of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) relating to sexual assault in the
military.
Statement of Need: Issue this part to:
(1) Implement 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 103 and assign
responsibilities and provide guidance and procedures for the SAPR
Program;
(2) Establish SAPR minimum program standards, SAPR training
requirements, and SAPR requirements for the Department of Defense (DoD)
Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military; and consistent with
title 10, United States Code (Reference (d)) the DoD Task Force Report
on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault (Reference (e)) and pursuant to
References (b) and (c), and Public Law 106-65, 108-375, 109-163, 109-
364, 110-417, 111-84, 111-383, 112-81, 112-239, 113-66, 113-291, and
114-92;
(3) Provide of the preemption of state and local laws mandating
reporting of an adult sexual assault incident;
(4) Protect from retaliation, coercion, and reprisal due to
reporting a sexual assault;
(5) Provide for individualized legal representation from a Special
Victims' Counsel (SVC) or Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC);
(6) Provide for the opportunity to request an Expedited Transfer as
a means to getting a fresh start to support victim recovery;
(7) Establish the multidisciplinary Case Management Group as the
oversight body of an Unrestricted sexual assault report.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is pursued under the
authorities of all applicable congressional mandates from section 113
of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), and Public Law 106-65, 108-
375, 109-163, 109-364, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 113-66; 113-291, 114-
92.
Alternatives: The DoD will not have current guidance relating to
the provisions of law enacted by Congress critical to the
implementation of sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR), SAPR
training standards, victim support, and reporting procedures.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Fiscal year 2016 estimate of the
anticipated cost associated with this rule is approximately $15
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. These costs are less
than those of other alternative benefits and 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 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 for persons covered in this part.
(4) Creating Command sexual assault awareness and prevention
programs and DoD law enforcement procedures that enable persons to be
held appropriately accountable for their actions.
(5) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines,
protocols, and guidelines for training materials focus on awareness,
prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
(6) Requiring Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), SAPR
Victim Advocates (VA), and other responders to assist sexual assault
victims regardless of Service affiliation.
(7) Procedures for informing victims at the time of making the
report, or as soon as practicable, of the option to request a temporary
or permanent expedited transfer from their assigned command or
installation, or to a different location within their assigned command
or installation, in accordance with the procedures for commanders in
105.9 of this part.
(8) Protections from reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for filing a
report of sexual assault.
(9) Reporting options for Service members and military dependents
18 years and older who have been sexually assaulted.
(10) Providing support to an active duty Military Service member
regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place.
(11) Establishing 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) Requiring Military Departments to establish procedures for
supporting
[[Page 94534]]
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) Directing 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 1726 of NDAA FY
14.
(15) Providing for the Preemption of state and local laws requiring
disclosure of personally identifiable information of the service member
(or adult military dependent) victim or alleged perpetrator to state or
local law enforcement agencies, unless such reporting is necessary to
prevent or mitigate a serious and imminent threat to the health and
safety of an individual, as determined by an authorized Department of
Defense official.
Risks: The degree of risk to Service member is that sexual assault
victims will not be able to access support services or understand the
availability of resources to assist them, such as: the opportunity to
receive an Expedited Transfer as a means to getting a fresh start to
support recovery; inability to request a Restricted Report in mandatory
reporting jurisdiction; and failure to capture and preserve forensic
evidence associated with sexual assault cases.
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.................. 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Diana Rangoussis, Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703 696-
9422.
RIN: 0790-AI36
DOD--OS
20. Identification (ID) Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services,
Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals (Adding Subpart D)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1061; 10 U.S.C. 1062; 10 U.S.C. 1063; 10
U.S.C. 1064; 10 U.S.C. 1072; 10 U.S.C. 1073; 10 U.S.C. 1074; 10 U.S.C.
1074(a); 10 U.S.C. 1074(b); 10 U.S.C. 1074(c); 10 U.S.C. 1076; 10
U.S.C. 1076(a); 10 U.S.C. 1077; 10 U.S.C. 1095(k)(2); 18 U.S.C. 499; 18
U.S.C. 506; 18 U.S.C. 509; 18 U.S.C. 701; 18 U.S.C. 1001
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 161.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Among the Obama Administration regulatory priorities are
rules which extend fairness and tolerance to all Americans. The
Department of Defense (DoD) previously published an interim final rule
that establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides
procedures for the issuing of distinct DoD ID cards. The ID cards are
issued to uniformed service members, their dependents, and other
eligible individuals and are used as proof of identity and DoD
affiliation, and facilitate the extension of DoD benefits. The interim
final rule extended benefits to all eligible dependents of Uniformed
Service members and eligible DoD civilians. It was necessary to amend
the interim final rule to ensure the issuance of ID cards and extension
of benefits aligns with current Federal and DoD policy, and to include
an additional implementing manual addressing eligibility documentation
requirements. 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: Many changes have occurred since DoD previously
issued ID card policy in 1997 that require regulation and policy to be
updated, which include but are not limited to Obama administration
priorities of extending fairness and tolerance to all Americans.
Supreme Court decisions within the last five years, required DoD to
ensure that ID card policy was inclusive of same-sex spouse and
transgender retiree and dependent populations. Additionally, the length
of the previous document combined with additional information necessary
to make the document current, required separation into an overarching
instruction with supporting subject matter specific manuals.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is pursued under the
authorities of title 5, title 10 and title 18 U.S.C.
Alternatives: DoD does not have any alternatives to address the
issuing of distinct DoD ID cards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no costs to the public.
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with the issuance of
this rule. ID cards cost the Department approximately $28.3 million
annually.
Risks: There is no risk to the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 10/27/16 81 FR 74874
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 10/27/16 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 12/27/16 .......................
End.
Final Action........................ 05/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1000.13, ``Identification
(ID) Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and
Other Eligible Individuals''; DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1, ``DoD
Identification (ID) Cards: ID Card Life-Cycle''; DoD Manual 1000.13,
Volume 2, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards: Benefits for Members of the
Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals'';
DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 3, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards:
Eligibility Documentation Required for Defense Enrollment Eligibility
(DEERS) Enrollment, Record Management, and ID Card Issuance''
Agency Contact: Robert Eves, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 571 372-1956,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0790-AI61
RIN: 0790-AJ37
DOD--OS
21. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program
Priority: Other Significant.
[[Page 94535]]
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113; Pub. L. 112-81; Pub. L. 113-66;
Pub. L. 114-92
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 103.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This interim final rule establishes that victims of
sexual assault perpetrated by a spouse or intimate partner, or military
dependent under the age of 18 is a Family Advocate Program (FAP) matter
and does not fall within the SAPR program. However to ensure FAP
involvement, this interim final rule requires the installation SARC and
installation FAP to coordinate together when a sexual assault occurs as
a result of domestic violence or involves child abuse. The rule
requires sexual assault victims be informed of the availability of
legal assistance and the right to consult with a Special Victims'
Counsel and Victims' Legal Counsel and gives military members who are
sexually assaulted the ability to request an Expedited Transfer as a
means to getting a fresh start'' while escaping the stigma associated
with sexual assault. Finally, the rule mandates the establishment and
implementation of a SAPR program within National Guard Bureau. The
Department of Defense is publishing this rule as interim to maintain
and enhance the current SAPR program which elucidates the prevention,
response, and oversight of sexual assaults involving members of the
U.S. Armed Forces and Reserve Component, to include the National Guard.
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to:
(1) Establish and implement a complete SAPR program which focuses
on prevention, training, and response to sexual assaults involving
members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
(2) 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.
(3) Focus on the victim and on doing what is necessary and
appropriate to support victim recovery.
(4) Establish SAPR minimum program standards to include training
requirements, oversight responsibilities, data collection, and reports.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is established pursuant to
all applicable congressional mandates from section 113 of title 10,
United States Code (U.S.C.), and Public Laws 106-65, 108-375, 109-163,
109-364, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 113-66.
Alternatives: The DoD will not have current guidance relating to
the implementation of the provisions of law enacted by Congress
critical to sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR), SAPR
training standards, victim support, and reporting procedures.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Fiscal Year 2015 Operation and
Maintenance funding for DoD SAPRO was $24.3 million with an additional
Congressional allocation of $25.0 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. These
costs are less than those of other alternative benefits and 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.
(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 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 does not intend physical or mental harm to
individuals of the public. The rule intends to enable military
readiness by establishing a culture free of sexual assault. Sexual
assault poses a serious threat to military readiness because the
potential costs and consequences are extremely high: chronic
psychological consequences may include depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and substance abuse. In the U.S. Armed Forces, sexual
assault not only degrades individual resilience but also may erode unit
integrity. An effective fighting force cannot tolerate sexual assault
within its ranks. Sexual assault is incompatible with military culture
and mission readiness, and the risks to mission accomplishments are
unbearable. This rule aims to mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Final Rule Stage
22. TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals and Inpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, is
proposing to revise its reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals
(LTCHs) and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs). Proposed
revisions are in accordance with the statutory provision at title 10,
United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1079(i)(2) that requires TRICARE
payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent
practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as apply
to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare.
32 CFR 199.2 includes a definition for ``Hospital, long-term
(tuberculosis, chronic care, or rehabilitation).'' This rule proposes
to delete this definition and create separate definitions for ``Long
Term Care Hospital'' and ``Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'' in
accordance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
classification criteria. Under TRICARE, LTCHs and IRFs (both
freestanding
[[Page 94536]]
rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation hospital units) are
currently paid the lower of a negotiated rate (if they are a network
provider) or billed charges (if they are a non-network provider).
Although Medicare's reimbursement methods for LTCHs and IRFs are
different, it is prudent to propose adopting both the Medicare LTCH and
IRF Prospective Payment System (PPS) methods simultaneously to align
with our statutory requirement to reimburse like Medicare.This proposed
rule sets forth the proposed regulation modifications necessary for
TRICARE to adopt Medicare's LTCH and IRF Prospective Payment Systems
and rates applicable for inpatient services provided by LTCHs and IRFs
to TRICARE beneficiaries. 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: The rule is necessary to meet the statutory
provision to use Medicare reimbursement rules to the extent
practicable.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established enabling legislation
under section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2002 (NDAA-02), Public Law 107-107 (Dec. 28, 2001) changing the
statutory authorization in 10 U.S.C. 1079 (j)(2) that TRICARE payment
methods for institutional care shall be determined to the extent
practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules used by
Medicare.
Alternatives: This rule implements statutorily required provisions
for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement
rules which are consistent with well established congressional
objectives. No other alternative is applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is projected that implementation
of this rule in Fiscal Year (FY) 17 will result in a health care
savings of $77 million for LTCHs and $53 million for IRFs.
Risks: The rule implements statutorily required provisions for
adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement
systems which are consistent with well established Congressional
objectives. No risk to the public is applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/26/15 80 FR 3926
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/27/15 .......................
Second NPRM......................... 08/31/16 81 FR 59934
Second NPRM Comment Period End...... 10/31/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 06/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ann N. Fazzini, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 303 676-3803.
RIN: 0720-AB47
DOD--DODOASHA
23. TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance Medications Through Military
Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National Mail Order Pharmacy Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 5 U.S.C. 301
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2015, section 702(c)
of the NDAA 2015. Section 702(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. Buck
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 states
that beginning October 1, 2015, the pharmacy benefits program shall
require eligible covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic
prescription maintenance medications through military treatment
facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program.
Section 702(c) also terminates the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on
September 30, 2015.
Abstract: This final rule implements section 702(c) of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning October 1, 2015, the
pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible covered beneficiaries
generally to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications
through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-
order pharmacy program. Section 702(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates the TRICARE For
Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE For Life Pilot
Program described in section 716(f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program which began
in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to refill non-
generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment
facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program.
TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in the Medicare
wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This rule includes
procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered
prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program.
Statement of Need: The DoD interim rule established processes for
the new program of refills of maintenance medications for all non-
active duty TRICARE beneficiaries through military treatment facility
pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is established under the
authorities of 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 32 CFR 199.21.
Alternatives: The rule fulfills a statutory requirement, therefore
there are no alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The effect of the statutory
requirement, implemented by this rule, is to shift a volume of
prescriptions from retail pharmacies to the most cost-effective point-
of-service venues of military treatment facility pharmacies and the
mail order pharmacy program. This will produce savings to the
Department of approximately $88 million per year, and savings to
beneficiaries of approximately $16.5 million per year in reduced
copayments. Updated and more in-depth economic data will be provided
with the final rule.
Risks: Not finalizing this rule would risk a loss of savings to
both the Department and beneficiaries. There is no risk to the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 08/06/15 80 FR 46796
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/06/15 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 10/05/15 .......................
End.
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: George Jones, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington,
DC 20301, Phone: 703 681-2890.
RIN: 0720-AB64
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
[[Page 94537]]
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 2016-2017 school year, about 56 million students will
attend an estimated 132,000 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. Every Student Succeeds Act
President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) into
law on December 10, 2015. ESSA reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 with provisions aimed at helping to
ensure success for students and schools. The law:
Advances equity by upholding critical protections for
America's disadvantaged and high-need students.
Requires--for the first time--that all students in America
be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed
in college and careers.
Ensures that vital information is provided to educators,
families, students, and communities through annual statewide
assessments that measure students' progress toward those high
standards.
Helps to support and grow local innovations--including
evidence-based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders
and educators--consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise
Neighborhoods grant programs.
Sustains and expands this administration's historic
investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool.
Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability
and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools,
where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation
rates are low over extended periods of time.
The Department issued two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs)
that would amend existing regulations pertaining to accountability and
State plans, and the innovative assessment demonstration authority. We
also, following the completion of negotiated rulemaking, issued an NPRM
proposing to amend regulations on academic assessments, and plan to
publish an NPRM on the supplement not supplant provision in September
2016. We intend to issue final rules in all of these areas by January
2017.
B. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). When enacted, the HEA's
reauthorization will likely require the Department to promulgate
conforming regulations. In the meantime, we have identified several
regulatory activities for Fiscal Year 2017 under the Title IV Federal
Student Aid programs to improve protections for students and safeguard
Federal dollars invested in postsecondary education.
C. Perkins Act
Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act), which
focuses on increasing the quality of technical education. The
priorities for reauthorization include:
Effective alignment with today's labor market, including
clear expectations for high-quality programs;
Stronger collaboration among secondary and postsecondary
institutions, employers, and industry partners;
Meaningful accountability to improve academic and
employment outcomes for students; and
Local and State innovation in CTE, particularly the
development and replication of innovative CTE models.
[[Page 94538]]
We anticipate regulatory activity in response to the
reauthorization of the Perkins Act.
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 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (OESE)
Final Rule Stage
24. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
Accountability and State Plans
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1111, 1221e-3, 6303, 6311, 6394,
6601, 6611(d), 6823, 7113(c), 7801, 7842, 7844, 7845, and 8302; 42
U.S.C. 11432(g)
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 200.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary will amend the regulations implementing
programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also
will update the current ESEA general regulations to include the
requirements for the submission of State plans under ESEA programs,
including optional consolidated State plans.
Statement of Need: These regulations are necessary to implement
changes to the ESEA by the ESSA.
Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are necessary to
implement changes to the ESEA by the ESSA.
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................................ 05/31/16 81 FR 34539
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/01/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Meredith Miller, Department of Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 3C106,
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 401-8368, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1810-AB27
ED--OESE
25. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
by the Every Student Succeeds Act--Supplement Not Supplant Under Title
I, Part A
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6321(b)
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 200.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary proposes to establish regulations governing
programs administered under title I, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA). These proposed regulations are needed to implement
recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of title I of
the ESEA made by the ESSA.
Statement of Need: These proposed regulations are needed to
implement recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of
title I of the ESEA made by the ESSA.
Summary of Legal Basis: These proposed regulations are needed to
implement recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of
title I of the ESEA made by the ESSA.
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................................ 09/16/16 81 FR 61148
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/07/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: James Butler, Department of Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, Room 3E108, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 260-2274, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1810-AB33
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;
[[Page 94539]]
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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/departmentofenergyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf. DOE has published
a number of retrospective review update reports that are available at
http://www.energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.
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 2015, the Department published final rules that adopted new or
amended energy conservation standards for 13 different products,
including, commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps,
ceiling fan light kits, commercial pre-rinse spray valves, and beverage
vending machines. The 13 standards finalized in 2015 are estimated to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 429 million metric tons and
save American families and businesses $84 billion in electricity bills
through 2030.
Since 2009, the Energy Department has finalized new efficiency
standards for more than 45 household and commercial products, including
dishwashers, refrigerators and water heaters, which are estimated to
save consumers $540 billion 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 14
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 2016 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.
Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers (1904-AD59)
Residential Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas
Furnaces (1904-AD20)
Commercial Water Heaters (1904-AD34)
Commercial Packaged Boilers (1904-AD01)
General Service Fluorescent Lamps (1904-AD09)
Dedicated Purpose Pool Pumps (1904-AD52)
Manufactured Housing (1904-AC11)
For walk-in coolers and freezers, DOE estimates that energy savings
from electricity will be 0.90 quads over 30 years and the net benefit
to the Nation will be between $1.8 billion and $4.3 billion. For non-
weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnaces, DOE estimates
that energy savings will be 2.78 quads over 30 years and the net
benefit to the Nation will be between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion.
For commercial water heaters, DOE estimates that energy savings for
combined natural gas and electricity will be 1.8 quads over 30 years
and the net benefit to the Nation will be between $2.26 billion and
$6.75 billion. For commercial packaged boilers, DOE estimates that
energy savings will be 0.349 quads over 30 years and the net benefits
to the Nation will be between $0,414 billion and $1,687 billion. For
general service fluorescent lamps, DOE estimates that energy savings
will be 0.85 quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the nation will
be between $4.4 billion and $9.1 billion. For manufactured housing, DOE
estimates that energy savings will be 0.884 quads (Single-section) and
1.428 quads (Multi-section) over 30 years and the net benefit to the
Nation will be between $1.26 billion (Single-section) and $2.18 billion
(Multi-section) and $4.03 billion (Single-section) and $6.75 billion
(Multi-section). For dedicated purpose pool pumps, DOE has not yet
proposed candidate standard levels and therefore, 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
rulemaking for dedicated purpose pool pumps.
[[Page 94540]]
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
26. Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and (B)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 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 (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)). 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: DOE is directed under EPCA to establish
standards for GSL's, and that DOE complete the rulemaking by January 1,
2017.
Summary of Legal Basis: Amendments to EPCA in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) directed DOE to conduct
two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy conservation standards got
GSL's (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)). Furthermore, pursuant to EPCA, any
new or amended energy conservation standard that the 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 in the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy standards for General Service Lamps
outweigh the burdens. DOE estimates that energy savings will be .85
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between
$4.4 billion and $9.1 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework Document Availability; 12/09/13 78 FR 73737
Notice of 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.
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.
Notice of Public Meeting; Webinar... 03/15/16 81 FR 13763
NPRM................................ 03/17/16 81 FR 14528
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/16/16 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting; Webinar... 10/05/16 81 FR 69009
Proposed Definition and Data 10/18/16 81 FR 71794
Availability.
Proposed Definition and Data 11/08/16 .......................
Availability Comment Period End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL for More Information: 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
27. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-Weatherized Gas
Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(C); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 24, 2015, The later of 4/24/
2016 or one year after the issuance of the proposed rule. Final,
Judicial, April 24, 2016.
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 every six years whether more-stringent amended standards
would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would
save a significant amount of energy. DOE is considering amendments to
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), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6300, 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
[[Page 94541]]
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 in the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Residential Non-Weatherized
Gas Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces (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). For non-weatherized gas furnaces
and mobile home gas furnaces, DOE estimates that energy savings will be
2.78 quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be
between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Meeting............ 10/30/14 79 FR 64517
NPRM and Notice of Public Meeting... 03/12/15 80 FR 13120
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/20/15 80 FR 28851
NPRM Comment Period Extended 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.... 11/23/15 .......................
Supplemental NPRM and Notice of 09/23/16 81 FR 65720
Public Meeting.
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 11/22/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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
28. Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311; 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.306.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, Best efforts to complete the
rulemaking by 12/01/2016.
Abstract: In 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a rule
setting performance-based energy conservation standards for a variety
of walk-in cooler and freezer (walk-in) components. See 79 FR 32050
(June 3, 2014). That rule was challenged by a group of walk-in
refrigeration system manufacturers and walk-in installers, which led to
a settlement agreement regarding certain refrigeration equipment
classes addressed in that 2014 rule and certain aspects related to that
rule's analysis. See Lennox Int'l v. DOE, Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.
2014). Consistent with the settlement agreement, and in accordance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a working group was established
under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC)
to engage in a negotiated rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards to replace those that had been vacated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As a result of those negotiations, a
Term Sheet was produced containing a series of recommendations to ASRAC
for its approval and submission to DOE for the agency's further
consideration. Using the Term Sheet's recommendations, DOE is proposing
to establish energy conservation standards for the six equipment
classes of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that were vacated by
the Fifth Circuit and remanded to DOE for further action. Those
standards at issue involve: (1) The two standards applicable to
multiplex condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium and low
temperatures; and (2) the four standards applicable to dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. Also
consistent with the settlement agreement, DOE will consider any
comments (including any accompanying data) regarding any potential
impacts of these six standards on installers. DOE will also consider
and substantively address any potential impacts of these six standards
on installers in its Manufacturer Impact Analysis, consistent with its
regulatory definition of ``manufacturer,'' and, as appropriate, in its
analysis of impacts on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. As part of this rulemaking (and consistent with its obligations
under the settlement agreement), DOE will provide an opportunity for
all interested parties to submit comments concerning any proposed
standards. DOE will use its best efforts to issue a final rule
establishing the remanded standards by December 1, 2016.
Statement of Need: DOE is required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(f) to
establish performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-in
coolers and freezers. This rulemaking is being conducted to satisfy
that requirement by setting standards related to certain classes of
refrigeration systems used in walk-in applications.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the
agency's legal authority over walk-in coolers and freezers as one type
of covered equipment that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6313(f),
which requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-
based energy conservation standards for this equipment.
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
[[Page 94542]]
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 statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy standards for walk-in coolers and
freezers (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 0.90
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between
$1.8 billion to $4.3 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM and Notice of Public Meeting... 09/13/16 81 FR 62980
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/14/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56&action=viewlive.
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-AD59
DOE--EE
Final Rule Stage
29. Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
Abstract: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE establish energy
conservation standards for manufactured housing. See 42 U.S.C.
17071(a)(1). DOE is directed to base the energy efficiency standards on
the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC), except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost effective, or
a more stringent standard would be more cost effective, based on the
impact of the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on
total life-cycle construction and operating costs. DOE undertook a
successful negotiated rulemaking under the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act to negotiate
proposed Federal standards for the energy efficiency of manufactured
homes. As part of the consensus reached, the negotiating group
recommended that DOE conduct additional analysis to inform the
selection of solar heat gain coefficient requirements in certain
climate zones and seek information regarding window fenestration
pertaining to manufactured housing. A request for information was
issued on these topics.
Statement of Need: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE establish
energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE
establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. See
42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1).
Alternatives: DOE is directed to base the energy conservation
standards on the most recent version of the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC), except where DOE finds that the IECC is not
cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost
effective, based on the impact of the IECC on the purchase price of
manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating
costs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for manufactured
housing outweigh the burdens. For manufactured housing, DOE estimates
that energy savings will be 0.884 quads (Single-section) and 1.428
quads (Multi-section) over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation
will be between $1.26 billion (Single-section) and $2.18 billion
(Multi-section) and $4.03 billion (Single-section) and $6.75 billion
(Multi-section).
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/22/10 75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 03/24/10 .......................
Request for Information............. 06/25/13 78 FR 37995
RFI Comment Period End.............. 07/25/13 .......................
Extension of Term; Notice of Public 10/01/14 79 FR 59154
Meeting.
Request for Information............. 02/11/15 80 FR 7550
RFI Comment Period End.............. 03/13/15 .......................
NPRM................................ 06/17/16 81 FR 39756
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/16/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=97.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2009-BT-BC-0021.
Agency Contact: Joseph Hagerman, Office of Building Technologies,
EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-
4549, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC11
DOE--EE
30. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C); 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(B)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.87(B).
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 22, 2015, Either propose rule
or determination.
Abstract: EPCA, as amended by AEMTCA, requires the Secretary to
determine whether updating the statutory energy conservation standards
for commercial packaged boilers is technically feasible and
economically justified and would save a significant amount of energy.
If justified, the Secretary will issue amended energy conservation
standards for such equipment.
Statement of Need: DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of its
standards for commercial packaged boilers every 6 years and to publish
either a notice of determination that such standards do not need to be
amended or a NOPR including proposed amended standards,
[[Page 94543]]
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i). This rulemaking fulfills that requirement.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for
commercial packaged boilers.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted pursuant
to DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to amend 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 statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial
packaged boilers (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 will be 0.39 quads over 30
years and the net benefits to the Nation will be between $0.414 billion
and $1.687 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Proposed Determination 08/13/13 78 FR 49202
(NOPD).
NOPD Comment Period End............. 09/12/13 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting and 09/03/13 78 FR 54197
Framework Document Availability.
Framework Document Comment Period 10/18/13 .......................
End.
Notice of Public Meeting and 11/20/14 79 FR 69066
Preliminary Analysis.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period 01/20/15 .......................
End.
Withdrawal of NOPD.................. 08/25/15 80 FR 51487
NPRM................................ 03/24/16 81 FR 15836
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/23/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/04/16 81 FR 26747
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 06/22/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/79.
Agency Contact: James Raba, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
586-8654, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD01
DOE--EE
31. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating
Equipment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 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 under EPCA 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: DOE is required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) to
establish performance-based energy conservation standards for
commercial water heaters. This rulemaking is being conducted to satisfy
that requirement by setting standards related to certain classes of
commercial water heating equipment.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the
agency's legal authority over water heaters as one type of covered
equipment that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), which
requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-based
energy conservation Standards for this equipment.
Alternatives: Under EPCA, DOE shall either establish an amended
uniform national standard for this equipment at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform national
standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for
this equipment would result in significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial
water heating equipment outweighs the burdens. DOE estimates that
energy savings for combined natural gas and electricity will be 1.8
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between
$2.26 billion and $6.75 billion.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 10/21/14 79 FR 62899
RFI Comment Period End.............. 11/20/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 05/31/16 81 FR 34440
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/01/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 08/05/16 81 FR 51812
Comment Period End.................. 08/30/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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].
[[Page 94544]]
RIN: 1904-AD34
DOE--EE
32. Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE may set
energy conservation standards for types of pumps, including dedicated-
purpose pool pumps (42 U.S.C. 3211(1)(A)). On August 8, 2015, DOE
announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking working
group to negotiate proposed federal standards for dedicated-purpose
pool pumps. The working group presented a final term sheet to the
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) on
December 8, 2015.
Statement of Need: Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(a), DOE has established
performance-based energy conservation standards for general-purpose
pumps and created a separate category for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
DOE is now conducting this rulemaking to set energy conservation
standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the
agency's legal authority over pumps as one type of covered equipment
that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6311(a), which allows DOE to
conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-based energy conservation
standards for this equipment.
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 is conducting a full analysis by evaluating a range
of standard levels to determine whether potential standards for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps would save energy and whether such
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE has not yet proposed candidate
standard levels for dedicated purpose pool pumps and therefore, cannot
provide an estimate of combined aggregated 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.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for information (RFI)....... 05/08/15 80 FR 26475
RFI Comment Period End.............. 06/22/15 .......................
RFI Comment Period Reopened......... 07/02/15 80 FR 38032
RFI Comment Period Reopened End..... 08/17/15 .......................
Notice of Intent to Start Negotiated 08/25/15 80 FR 51483
Rulemaking Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP 10/15/15 80 FR 61996
Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP 02/29/16 81 FR 10152
Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP 04/18/16 81 FR 22548
Working Group.
Direct Final Rule................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41&action=viewlive.
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-AD52
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2017
As the Federal agency with principal responsibility for protecting
the health of all Americans and for providing essential human services,
especially to those least able to help themselves, 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 2017 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 its efficiency and accountability
includes its innovation agenda, program integrity and key human
resources initiatives. In particular, the Department plans to issue a
final regulation revising administrative appeal procedures for Medicare
claims 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.
Preventing and Reducing Tobacco-Related Death and Disease
In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act, authorizing the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (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 past
[[Page 94545]]
year, FDA finalized the regulation deeming other tobacco products that
meet the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be subject
to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This final regulation,
known as the ``deeming rule,'' affords FDA the authority to regulate
additional products which include hookah, electronic cigarettes,
cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco products, and future tobacco
products. Over the next year, FDA plans to issue further procedural and
substantive augmentation of that landmark regulation, designed to both
clarify the regulatory landscape for tobacco products and enhance
information available to consumers on the health risks of tobacco use.
Preventing the Spread of Disease Across Borders
Over the next year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) plans to finalize amendments to the foreign and interstate
quarantine regulations to more efficiently and effectively respond to
communicable disease threats to the public's health. The regulation
adds requirements for the collection of passenger and crew information,
allows for the public health screening of travelers, and revises and
adds relevant definitions.
Drugs and Medical Devices
FDA plans to issue a proposed rule addressing medication guide
regulations to require a new form of patient labeling, Patient
Medication Information, for submission to and review by FDA for human
prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on an
outpatient basis. The proposed rule would include requirements for
Patient Medication Information development, consumer testing, and
distribution. The proposed rule would require clear and concise written
prescription drug product information presented in a consistent and
easily understood format to help patients use their prescription drug
products safely and effectively. FDA is also proposing to amend its
regulations governing mammography. The amendments would update the
Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. FDA is taking this action to
address changes in mammography technology and mammography processes
that have occurred since the regulations were published in 1997 and to
address breast density reporting to patient and health care providers.
Improving Substance Use Treatment and Research Opportunities
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) is working to finalize changes to 42 CFR 2, the
Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records. The part 2
regulation protects the confidentiality of records that are maintained
in connection with any federally assisted program or activity related
to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment,
rehabilitation, or research. Under the part 2 statute and current
regulations, a federally assisted substance abuse program may only
release patient identifying information related to substance abuse
treatment services with the individual's written consent; pursuant to a
court order; or under a few other limited exceptions. These protections
are more stringent than most other privacy laws, including HIPAA.
SAMHSA is updating the part 2 rule in order to make it more compatible
with new models of integrated care, which are based on information
sharing, participation of multiple healthcare providers, and the
development of an electronic infrastructure for managing and exchanging
patient data. Part 2 has restricted the exchange of some of this data,
to the detriment of patient care and research.
III. Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to
Affordable Quality Care
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) 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 ACA
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
Forthcoming proposed and final rules will bring to completion
regulatory provisions that support our efforts to assist states in
implementing Medicaid eligibility and enrollment provisions stemming
from the Affordable Care Act. These changes provide states more
flexibility to coordinate Medicaid and CHIP eligibility notices,
appeals, and other related administrative procedures with similar
procedures used by the Exchanges.
Updating Organ Donation Authorities
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is
undertaking a regulation to improve and streamline the process for
human organ donation. HRSA is proposing a final rule that clarifies
that peripheral blood stem cells are included in the definition of bone
marrow under section 30 of the National Organ Transplantation Act of
1984.
IV. Leading in Science and Innovation
HHS continues to expand on early successes of a number of
initiatives, including the Precision Medicine Initiative, BRAIN
Initiative, and the Vice President's Cancer Moonshot, specifically by
updating the rules that govern research with human participants. In
particular, HHS plans to finalize revisions to existing rules governing
research with 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 final rule will
aim to better protect human subjects while facilitating research, and
also reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.
Patient-Centered Improvements to Health Technology
HHS plans to undertake regulations designed to enhance both
security and interoperability of electronic and other health records to
improve access to care. These initiatives include an update to the
regulations regarding confidentiality of substance abuse treatment
records to align with advances in health information technology (health
IT) while maintaining appropriate patient privacy protections.
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
[[Page 94546]]
state of medical practice and to respond to feedback from providers
seeking financial predictability and flexibility to better serve
patients. In particular, the annual Hospital Inpatient Prospective
Payment System for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital
Prospective Payment System and FY 2018 Rates proposed rule revises the
Medicare hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective
payment systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed
rule would implement changes arising from our continuing experience
with these systems.
Improving the 340B Program
HRSA plans to issue two regulations intended to improve
transparency and operation of its 340B Drug Pricing Program. These
regulations include:
340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer
Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation: HRSA plans to finalize this rule,
which defines standards and methodology for the calculation of ceiling
process for purposes of the 340B Program and imposes monetary sanctions
on drug manufacturers who intentionally charge a covered entity a price
above the ceiling price established for the 340B Program; and
340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus Guidance: This guidance,
when finalized, sets forth the responsibilities of 340B covered
entities and drug manufacturers to ensure compliance with the statute
establishing the 340B Program.
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 its
support of topics including early learning, Alzheimer's and dementia.
ACF plans to finalize a regulation making child support program
operations and enforcement procedures more efficient by recognizing
advancements in technology and the move toward electronic
communications and document management. An additional Administration
for Children and Families rule, when finalized, amends the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting Systems by modifying requirements
for foster care agencies to collect and report data on children in out-
of-home care and children under adoption or guardianship agreements
with child welfare agencies.
HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)
Final Rule Stage
33. Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The final rule will amend 42 CFR part 2 to update the
regulations for the modern health care context with respect to health
information technology and new health care models. The goal of this
rule is to balance the need for information exchange in new health care
models and applications with appropriate privacy protections for those
undergoing treatment for substance use disorders. The revisions to the
regulations would remain consistent with 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
(confidentiality of records).
Statement of Need: The last substantive update to these regulations
was in 1987. Over the last 29 years, significant changes have occurred
within the U.S. health care system that were not envisioned by the
current regulations, including new models of integrated care that are
built on a foundation of information sharing to support coordination of
patient care, the development of an electronic infrastructure for
managing and exchanging patient information, and a new focus on
performance measurement within the health care system. SAMHSA wants to
ensure that patients with substance use disorders have the ability to
participate in, and benefit from new integrated health care models
without fear of putting themselves at risk of adverse consequences.
These new integrated models are foundational to HHS's triple aim of
improving health care quality, improving population health, and
reducing unnecessary health care costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority for the part 2
regulation is based on 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, which protects the
confidentiality of records with respect to the identity, diagnosis,
prognosis, or treatment of any patient records that are maintained in
connection with the performance of any federally assisted program or
activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training,
treatment, rehabilitation, or research.\[1]\ Under the part 2 statute
and current regulations, a federally assisted substance abuse program
may only release patient identifying information related to substance
abuse treatment services with the individual's written consent;
pursuant to a court order; or under a few other limited exceptions.
Alternatives: Failure to finalize the rule would result in the
existing regulations staying in place, with none of the changes
proposed being adopted.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Over the 10-year period of 2016-
2025, the total undiscounted cost of the part 2 changes will be about
$241 million in 2016 dollars. When future costs are discounted at 3
percent or 7 percent per year, the total costs become approximately
$217,586,000 or $193,098,000, respectively. The benefits would be
improvements in the integration and coordination of substance use
disorder treatment with the broader health system and improved use of
data to inform the development improvement of the substance use
disorder treatment system.
Risks: If this rule is not finalized, it will result in significant
scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, who have been pushing for an
update to the rule. It would also inhibit integrated care for substance
use disorders and prevent the use of some data in research related to
substance use disorder treatment at a time when the issue is a key
priority to the Department as a result of the opioid crisis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/09/16 81 FR 6987
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/11/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kate Tipping, Public Health Advisor, Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 240
276-1652.
RIN: 0930-AA21
HHS--CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Final Rule Stage
34. Control of Communicable Diseases
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Sec. 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 264 to 265)
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 70; 42 CFR 71.
[[Page 94547]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule clarifies data collection requirements for
airline passengers and crew, codifies current practice, clarifies HHS/
CDC's authority to implement non-invasive public health screenings at
U.S. ports of entry and other U.S. locations; and adds appeal
provisions for persons served with a Federal public health order (e.g.,
quarantine) with due process, including clarification of reasons,
processes, and reassessments.
Statement of Need: The need for this proposed rulemaking was
reinforced during HHS/CDC's response to the largest outbreak of Ebola
virus disease (Ebola) on record, followed by the recent outbreak of
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, both
quarantinable communicable diseases, and repeated outbreaks and
responses to measles, a non-quarantinable communicable disease of
public health concern, in the United States. The provisions contained
within this proposal will enhance HHS/CDC's ability to prevent the
further importation and spread of communicable diseases into the United
States and interstate by clarifying and providing greater transparency
regarding its response capabilities and practices.
Summary of Legal Basis: The primary legal authority supporting this
rulemaking is sections 361 and 362 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 264, 265).
Alternatives: None. The main impact of the proposals within this
rule is to strengthen our regulations by codifying statutory language
to describe HHS/CDC's authority to prevent the introduction,
transmission, and spread of communicable diseases. The intent of these
proposed updates is to best protect U.S. public health and to inform
the regulated community of these updates.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The analysis of estimated costs and
benefits of this rule has 4 components: (1) Costs and benefits for
submitting passenger and crew information to CDC; (2) costs and
benefits associated with improved transparency of how HHS/CDC uses its
regulatory authorities to protect public health; (3) transfer payments
by HHS/CDC for treatment and care; and (4) the impact of the proposed
provision suspending the entry of animals, articles, or things from
designated foreign countries and places into the United States.
Risks: If this regulation is not published, HHS/CDC's ability to
prevent the further importation and spread of communicable diseases
into the United States and interstate will be limited; current
regulatory language will not be clarified; and there will be less
transparency to the public regarding HHS/CDC's response capabilities
and practices.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/15/16 81 FR 54230
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/14/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Agency Contact: Ashley Marrone, Public Health Analyst, Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E03, Atlanta, GA 30329, Phone:
404 498-1600, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0920-AA63
HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
Proposed Rule Stage
35. Mammography Quality Standards Act; Regulatory Amendments
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360i; 21 U.S.C. 360nn; 21 U.S.C. 374(e);
42 U.S.C. 263b
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 900.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend its regulations governing
mammography. The amendments would update the regulations issued under
the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). FDA is taking
this action to address changes in mammography technology and
mammography processes that have occurred since the regulations were
published in 1997 and to address breast density reporting to patient
and health care providers.
Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to update the mammography
regulations that were issued under the Mammography Quality Standards
Act of 1992 (MQSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act). FDA is taking this action to address changes in mammography
technology and mammography processes, such as breast density reporting,
that have occurred since the regulations were published in 1997.
FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by
incorporating current science and mammography best practices. These
updates are intended to improve the delivery of mammography services.
Summary of Legal Basis: Mammography is an X-ray imaging examination
device that is regulated under the authority of the FD&C Act. FDA is
proposing these amendments to the mammography regulations (set forth in
21 CFR part 900) under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 263b), and sections 519, 537, and 704(e) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360i, 360nn, and 374(e)).
Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options so that
the health benefits to patients are maximized and the economic burdens
to mammography facilities are minimized.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary public health benefits
of the rule will come from the potential for earlier breast cancer
detection, improved morbidity and mortality, resulting in reductions in
cancer treatment costs. The primary costs of the rule will come from
industry labor costs and costs associated with supplemental testing and
biopsies.
Risks: If a final regulation does not publish, the potential
reduction in fatalities and earlier breast cancer detection, resulting
in reduction in cancer treatment costs, will not materialize to the
detriment of public health
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Nancy Pirt, Regulatory Counsel, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 4438, 10903 New Hampshire
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-6248, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH04
[[Page 94548]]
HHS--FDA
36. Patient Medication Information
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C.
264
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 208; 21 CFR 310.501 and 310.515; 21 CFR
201.57(a)(18); 21 CFR 201.80(f)(2); 21 CFR 314.70(b)(2)(v)(B); 21 CFR
610.60(a)(7); 21 CFR 201.100; . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule would amend FDA medication guide
regulations to require a new form of patient labeling, Patient
Medication Information, for submission to and review by the FDA for
human prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on an
outpatient basis. The proposed rule would include requirements for
Patient Medication Information development, consumer testing, and
distribution. The proposed rule would require clear and concise written
prescription drug product information presented in a consistent and
easily understood format to help patients use their prescription drug
products safely and effectively.
Statement of Need: Patients may currently receive one or more types
of written patient information regarding prescription drug products.
That information is frequently duplicative, incomplete, conflicting, or
difficult to read and understand and is not sufficient to meet the
needs of patients. Patient Medication Information is a new type of one-
page Medication Guide that FDA is proposing to require for certain
prescription drug products. Patient Medication Information is intended
to improve public health by providing clear, concise, accessible, and
useful written prescription drug product information, delivered in a
consistent and easily understood format, to help patients use
prescription drug products safely and effectively and potentially
reduce preventable adverse drug reactions and improve health outcomes.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's proposed revisions to the regulations
regarding format and content requirements for prescription drug
labeling are authorized by the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) and by
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264).
Risks: The current system does not consistently provide patients
with useful written information to help them use their prescription
drug products safely and effectively. The proposed rule would require
consumer-tested and FDA-approved Patient Medication Information for
certain prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on
an outpatient basis.
Alternatives: FDA evaluated various formats for patient medication
information.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The monetary benefit of the proposed
rule stems from an increase in medication adherence due to patients
having more complete information about their prescription drug
products. The proposed rule would impose costs that stem from
developing, testing, and approving Patient Medication Information.
Risks: The current system does not consistently provide patients
with useful written information to help them use their prescription
drug products safely and effectively. The proposed rule would require
consumer-tested and FDA-approved Patient Medication Information for
certain prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on
an outpatient basis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Elisabeth Walther, Health Policy Analyst,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Building 50 Room 6312, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993, Phone: 301 796-3913, Fax: 301 847-3529, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH33
HHS--HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Final Rule Stage
37. 340(B) Civil Monetary Penalties for Manufacturers and Ceiling Price
Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 7102 of the Affordable Care Act; Pub. L. 111-
148, amending subsec(d); sec. 340(B) of the PHS Act
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, September 20, 2010, ANPRM met
deadline for Civil Monetary Penalties for Manufacturers.
Abstract: This final rule is required under the Affordable Care
Act. It amends section 340(B) of the Public Health Service Act to
impose monetary sanctions (not to exceed $5,000 per instance) on drug
manufacturers who intentionally charge a covered entity a price above
the ceiling price established under the procedures of the 340(B)
Program and also define standards and methodology for the calculation
of ceiling prices for purposes of the 340(B) Program.
Statement of Need: The final rule provides a critical enforcement
mechanism for the Department when drug manufacturers intentionally
charge a covered entity a price above the ceiling price established
under the procedures of the 340B Program. The rule also defines the
standards and methodology for the calculation of ceiling prices for
purposes of the 340B Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 340B(d)(1)(B)(vi) and
340B(d)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Public Health Service Act.
Alternatives: None. This rule implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
Risks: This final rule enables the Department to meet its statutory
obligation under the Affordable Care Act to finalize regulations in
these areas, which is expected to enhance the integrity of the 340B
Program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/20/10 75 FR 57230
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 11/19/10 .......................
NPRM................................ 06/17/15 80 FR 34583
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/17/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: CAPT Krista Pedley, Department of Health and Human
Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Phone: 301 443-
5294, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Merged with 0906-AA92
RIN: 0906-AA89
HHS--HRSA
38. Definition of Human Organ Under Section 301 of the National Organ
Transplant Act of 1984
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-129; Stem Cell Therapeutic and
Research Act of 2005, as amended in 2010 by Pub. L. 111-264
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 18, 2016, Congressional
deadline.
[[Page 94549]]
On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104 was enacted and required
the Secretary to issue a determination no later than December 18, 2016,
as to whether peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are
``human organs'' subject to NOTA section 301.
Abstract: This final rule clarifies that peripheral blood stem
cells are included in the definition of bone marrow under section 301
of the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984, as amended and
codified in 42 U.S.C. 274e.
Statement of Need:
There are currently two methods to collect hematopoietic
stem cells (HSCs) from a donor: bone marrow aspiration, and apheresis
following a drug regimen. In the second category, granulocyte-colony-
stimulating factors are administered over 4-5 days to stimulate the
donor to produce and release HSCs from the bone marrow into the
peripheral (circulating) blood, where they are collected by apheresis
in one or two sessions for a total of 8 hours.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held
that HSCs collected from peripheral blood are not human organs subject
to the prohibition against transfer for valuable consideration
established in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984
(NOTA).
Should donors begin to be compensated, that decision creates the
potential for disparate compensation practices for HSCs collected by
bone marrow aspiration and HSCs collected from peripheral blood. The
disparity could lead to fewer donations of HSCs by bone marrow
aspiration, despite clear clinical preferences for such HSCs for
certain patients and conditions. It could also lead to a foreclosure of
access to international donor registries, which continue to provide
matched donors for patients in the United States.
Summary of Legal Basis: In 2011, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals held that HSCs from peripheral blood are not bone marrow
under the prohibition in NOTA section 301. Under this ruling, the
transfer of HSCs in bone marrow would be subject to the prohibition in
NOTA section 301, while HSCs obtained by mobilizing the donor to
release HSCs from the bone marrow into the blood stream so that they
may be recovered within days from the donor's peripheral blood would
not be subject to the prohibition. The court further observed that,
although NOTA section 301 authorized the Secretary to issue a
regulation identifying additional human organs subject to that
provision, HHS had not yet exercised its authority to identify
peripheral blood stem cells as section 301 authorizes. Flynn v. Holder,
684 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2012). On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104
was enacted, which required the Secretary to issue a determination as
to whether peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are
human organs subject to NOTA section 301 no later than December 18,
2016.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule is not expected
to have significant cost implications.
Risks: Although the registry for HSC donors administered under
statute as the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program has
continued to advise registrants that they will not be compensated for
registering or donating their HSCs, compensation may become more common
if we do not complete this rulemaking. The implementation of payment
for donors of peripheral blood stem cells could adversely affect the
safety of donors who may proceed with donation even when they have
concerns about the risks, as well as the safety of patients, if the
lure of compensation leads donors to hide information about their
communicable disease risks. In addition, it may make donors less
willing to donate HSCs by bone marrow aspiration, if by doing so they
would forego compensation for donating of peripheral blood stem cells.
It could also foreclose access to international donors. Such access is
currently provided by reciprocal agreements with foreign registries,
which require that donors of HSCs be uncompensated volunteers.
In addition, disapproval of this action would mean that HHS would
not meet the December 18, 2016, deadline Congress set for completion.
As drafted, the proposed rule elicited a few comments about the
inclusion of umbilical cord blood within the scope of the proposed
rule. On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104 was enacted, which
required the Secretary to issue a determination as to whether
peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are human organs
subject to NOTA section 301 no later than December 18, 2016.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/02/13 78 FR 60810
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/02/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Dr. James Bowman, Medical Director, Division of
Transplantation, Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06,
Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443-4861.
RIN: 0906-AB02
HHS--HRSA
39. 340B Program Omnibus Guidelines
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This guidance addresses key policy issues raised by
stakeholders for which HHS does not have statutory rulemaking
authority.
Statement of Need: The Omnibus Guidance addresses key policy issues
raised by various stakeholders committed to ensuring the integrity of
the 340B Program and assisted covered entities and manufacturers in
their ability to satisfy 340B Program requirements and expectations.
Summary of Legal Basis: HHS is interpreting section 340B of the
Public Health Service Act and issuing final guidance in critical areas.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Some covered entities and
manufacturers may increase spending on 340B Program compliance efforts,
including assessments of patients eligible for 340B drugs. HRSA does
not expect any such costs to be significant.
Risks: Not issuing the final guidance will result in a lack of
clarity in some 340B areas.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 08/28/15 80 FR 52300
Notice Comment Period End........... 10/27/15 .......................
Final Guidance Action............... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Krista Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy
Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and
Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443-5294, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0906-AB08
[[Page 94550]]
HHS--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH)
Final Rule Stage
40. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects; Final Rules
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
PL 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 289
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 46.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The final rules would revise current human subjects
regulations in order to strengthen protections for research subjects
while facilitating valuable research and reducing burden, delay, and
ambiguity for investigators.
Statement of Need: Since the Federal Policy for the Protection of
Human Subjects (often referred to as the Common Rule) was promulgated
by 15 U.S. Federal departments and agencies in 1991, the volume and
landscape of research involving human subjects have changed
considerably. Research with human subjects has grown in scale and
become more diverse. Examples of developments include: An expansion in
the number and type of clinical trials, as well as observational
studies and cohort studies; a diversification of the types of social
and behavioral research being used in human subjects research;
increased use of sophisticated analytic techniques for use with human
biospecimens; and the growing use of electronic health data and other
digital records to enable very large data sets to be analyzed and
combined in novel ways. Yet these developments have not been
accompanied by major change in the human subjects research oversight
system, which has remained largely unchanged over the last two decades.
The proposed revisions are needed to modernize, strengthen, and make
more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.
Summary of Legal Basis: None.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The quantified and non-quantified
benefits and costs of all proposed changes to the Common Rule are the
following: (1) Over the 2016-2025 period, present value benefits of
$2,629 million and annualized benefits of $308 million are estimated
using a 3 percent discount rate; and, present value benefits of $2,047
million and annualized benefits of $291 million are estimated using a 7
percent discount rate; (2) present value costs of $13,342 million and
annualized costs of $1,564 million are estimated using a 3 percent
discount rate; and, present value costs of $9,605 million and
annualized costs of $1,367 million are estimated using a 7 percent
discount rate.
Risks: If this regulation is not published, the rules overseeing
federally funded or conducted human subjects research will not be
modernized, strengthened or made more effective.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/11 76 FR 44512
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/26/11 .......................
NPRM................................ 09/08/15 80 FR 53931
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/07/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research
Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department
of Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Health,
200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 240 453-6900,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0937-AA02
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
41. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for
Medicaid, and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment
for Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-2334-P2)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; Pub. L. 111-148
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42
CFR 457.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule proposes to implement provisions of
the Medicaid statute pertaining to Medicaid eligibility and appeals.
This proposed rule continues our efforts to provide guidance to assist
States in implementing Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, appeals, and
enrollment changes required by the Affordable Care Act.
Statement of Need: On January 22, 2013, we published a proposed
rule entitled ``Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans,
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and
Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to
Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and
Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing'' that proposed changes to provide
states more flexibility to coordinate Medicaid and CHIP procedures
related to eligibility notices, appeals, and other related
administrative actions with similar procedures used by other health
coverage programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act. We received
a number of public comments on the proposed rule suggesting
alternatives that we had not originally considered and did not propose.
To give the public the opportunity to comment on those options, we are
now proposing revisions related to those comments. In addition, we
propose to make other corrections and modifications related to
delegations of eligibility determinations and appeals, and appeals
procedures. We have developed these proposals through our experiences
working with states and Exchanges, and Exchange appeals entities
operationalizing fair hearings.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Affordable Care Act extends and
simplifies Medicaid eligibility. The rule proposes alternatives not
included in the previously published January 22, 2013 proposed rule,
based on public comments received.
Alternatives: The majority of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility
provisions proposed in this rule serve to implement the Affordable Care
Act. Therefore, alternatives considered for this rule were constrained
due to the statutory provisions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While states will likely incur
short-term increases in administrative costs, we do not anticipate that
this proposed rule would have significant financial effects on state
Medicaid programs. The extent of these initial costs will depend on
current state policy and practices, as many states have already adopted
the administrative simplifications addressed in the rule. In addition,
the administrative simplifications proposed in this rule may lead to
savings as states streamline their fair hearing processes, consistent
with the processes used by the Marketplace, and implement timeliness
and performance standards.
Risks: None. Delaying publication of this rule delays states from
moving forward with implementing changes to Medicaid and CHIP, and
aligning operations between Medicaid, CHIP and the Exchanges.
Timetable:
[[Page 94551]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Agency Contact: Judith Cash, Division Director, Division of
Eligibility, Enrollment & Outreach, Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid
and CHIP Services, Mail Stop S2-01-16, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4473, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Split from 0938-AS27
RIN: 0938-AS55
HHS--CMS
42. FY 2018 Prospective Payment System and Consolidated
Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFS) (CMS-1679-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 31, 2017.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the payment rates
used under the prospective payment system for SNFs for fiscal year
2018.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would update the SNF
prospective payment rates as required under the Social Security Act
(the Act). The Act requires the Secretary to provide, before the August
1 that precedes the start of each FY, the unadjusted federal per diem
rates, the case-mix classification system, and the factors to be
applied in making the area wage adjustment.
Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with sections
1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5) of the Act, the federal rates in
this proposed rule would reflect an update to the rates that we
published in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2017, which reflects the SNF
market basket index, as adjusted by the multifactor productivity (MFP)
adjustment for FY 2018. These changes would be applicable to services
furnished on or after October 1, 2017.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2018.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, SNF services
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Bill Ullman, Technical Advisor, Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Center for Medicare, MS: C5-06-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-5667, Fax: 410 786-0765, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS96
HHS--CMS
43. FY 2018 Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective
Payment System--Rate Update (CMS-1673-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the prospective
payment rates for inpatient psychiatric facilities with discharges
beginning on October 1, 2017.
Statement of Need: This rule is required to update the prospective
payment rates and wage index values for Medicare inpatient hospital
services provided by inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs), which
include freestanding IPFs and psychiatric units of an acute care
hospital or critical access hospital.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 1886 of the Act, rates are
adjusted based on the market basket update. These changes would be
applicable to services furnished on or after October 1, 2017.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2018.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, IPFs will not
receive accurate Medicare payments for furnishing inpatient psychiatric
services to beneficiaries in IPFs in FY 2018.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Agency Contact: Jana Lindquist, Director, Division of Chronic Care
Management, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-05-27, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-9374, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS97
HHS--CMS
44. FY 2018 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF)
Prospective Payment System (CMS-1671-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the prospective
payment rates for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) for fiscal
year 2018.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would update the prospective
payment rates for IRFs for as required under the Social Security Act
(the Act). As required by the Act, this rule includes the
classification and weighting factors for the IRF PPS's case-mix groups
and a description of the methodologies and data used in computing the
prospective payment rates for FY 2018. This rule also proposes
revisions and updates to the quality measures and reporting
requirements under the IRF QRP.
Summary of Legal Basis: The IRF prospective payment rates are
updated as required under section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the Act. It responds
to section 1886(j)(5) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to, on
or before the August 1 that precedes the start of each fiscal year,
publish the classification and weighting factors for the IRF PPS's
case-mix groups and a description of the methodology and data used in
computing the prospective payment rates for that fiscal year.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2018.
[[Page 94552]]
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, IRF services
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Gwendolyn Johnson, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-06-27, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6954, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS99
HHS--CMS
45. FY 2018 Hospice Rate Update (CMS-1675-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 418.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the hospice
payment rates and the wage index for fiscal year 2018.
Statement of Need: We are required to annually issue the hospice
wage index based on the most current available CMS hospital wage data,
including any changes to the definitions of Core-Based Statistical
Areas (CBSAs) or previously used Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule proposes updates to the hospice
payment rates for fiscal year as required under section 1814(i) of the
Social Security Act (the Act). This rule also proposes new quality
measures and provides an update on the hospice quality reporting
program (HQRP) consistent with the requirements of section 1814(i)(5)
of the Act, as added by section 3004(c) of the Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2018.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, Hospice services
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Hillary Loeffler, Director, Division of Home Health
and Hospice, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-07-22, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0456, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT00
HHS--CMS
46. CY 2018 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment
Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and
Payment Rates (CMS-1678-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
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, 2017.
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 proposed rule describes changes to the amounts and
factors used to determine payment rates for services. In addition, the
rule proposes changes to the ambulatory surgical center payment system
list of services and rates.
Statement of Need: Medicare pays over 4,000 hospitals for
outpatient department services under the hospital outpatient
prospective payment system (OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of
clinically similar services called ambulatory payment classification
groups (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC payment amounts based on
the most recent claims data, proposes new payment policies, and updates
the payments for inflation using the hospital operating market basket.
Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) under
the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under the ASC
payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for
inflation. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for
the 2018 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1,
2018.
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 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, 2018.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2018.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning
January 1, 2018.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Lela Strong, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-05-13, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3213, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT03
HHS--CMS
47. CY 2018 Changes to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
Prospective Payment System, Quality Incentive Program, and Durable
Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) (CMS-
1674-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395d(d); 42 U.S.C.
1395f(b); 42 U.S.C. 1395g; . . .
[[Page 94553]]
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 413.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2017.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the bundled
payment system for ESRD facilities by January 1, 2018. The rule would
also update the quality incentives in the ESRD program and implement
changes to the DMEPOS competitive bidding program.
Statement of Need: On January 1, 2011, CMS implemented the ESRD
prospective payment system (PPS), a case-mix adjusted, bundled
prospective payment system for renal dialysis services furnished by
ESRD facilities. Annually, we update and make revisions to the ESRD PPS
and requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP). The ESRD
QIP is the most recent step in fostering improved patient outcomes by
establishing incentives for dialysis facilities to meet or exceed
performance standards established by CMS. Additionally, we annually
adjust the methodology for adjusting DMEPOS fee schedule amounts.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1881(b)(14) of the Social Security
Act (the Act), as added by section 153(b) of the Medicare Improvements
for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Public Law 110-275),
and section 1881(b)(14)(F) of the Act, as added by section 153(b) of
MIPPA and amended by section 3401(h) of the Affordable Care Act Public
Law 111-148), established that beginning CY 2012, and each subsequent
year, the Secretary will annually increase payment amounts by an ESRD
market basket increase factor, reduced by the productivity adjustment
described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. Additionally,
the QIP program is authorized under section 1881(h) of the Social
Security Act (the Act).
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2018.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, ESRD facilities
will not receive accurate Medicare payment amounts for furnishing
outpatient maintenance dialysis treatments beginning January 1, 2018.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Michelle Cruse, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-05-27, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244.
Phone: 410 786-7540.
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT04
HHS--CMS
Final Rule Stage
48. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for
Medicaid, and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment
for Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-2334-F2)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1411, 1413, 1557, 1943,
2102, 2201, 2004, 2303, et al.
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42
CFR 457.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule implements provisions of the Affordable
Care Act that expand access to health coverage through improvements in
Medicaid and coordination between Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP), and Exchanges. This rule finalizes the remaining
provisions from the Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and
Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans,
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and
Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to
Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and
Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing; Proposed Rule that we published in
the January 22, 2013, Federal Register. This final rule continues our
efforts to provide guidance to assist States in implementing Medicaid
and CHIP eligibility, appeals, and enrollment changes required by the
Affordable Care Act.
Statement of Need: This final rule will implement provisions of the
Affordable Care Act and the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). This rule reflects new statutory
eligibility provisions; changes to provide States more flexibility to
coordinate Medicaid and CHIP eligibility notices, appeals, and other
related administrative procedures with similar procedures used by other
health coverage programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act;
modernizes and streamlines existing rules, eliminates obsolete rules,
and updates provisions to reflect Medicaid eligibility pathways;
implements other CHIPRA eligibility-related provisions, including
eligibility for newborns whose mothers were eligible for and receiving
Medicaid or CHIP coverage at the time of birth. With publication of
this final rule, we desire to make our implementing regulations
available to States and the public as soon as possible to facilitate
continued efficient operation of the State flexibility authorized under
section 1937 of the Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Affordable Care Act extends and
simplifies Medicaid eligibility. In the July 15, 2013, Federal
Register, we issued the ``Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance
Programs: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans,
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes, and Premiums
and Cost Sharing; Exchanges: Eligibility and Enrollment'' final rule
that finalized certain key Medicaid and CHIP eligibility provisions
included in the January 22, 2013, proposed rule. In this final rule, we
are addressing the remaining provisions of the January 22, 2013,
proposed rule.
Alternatives: The majority of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility
provisions proposed in this rule serve to implement the Affordable Care
Act. All of the provisions in this final rule are a result of the
passage of the Affordable Care Act and are largely self-implementing.
Therefore, alternatives considered for this final rule were constrained
due to the statutory provisions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The March 23, 2012, Medicaid
eligibility final rule detailed the impact of the Medicaid eligibility
changes related to implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The
majority of provisions included in this final rule were described in
detail in that rule, but in summary, we estimate a total savings of
$465 million over 5 years, including $280 million in cost savings to
the Federal Government and $185 million in savings to States.
Risks: None. Delaying publication of this final rule delays States
from moving forward with implementing changes to Medicaid and CHIP, and
aligning operations between Medicaid, CHIP, and the Exchanges.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94554]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Sarah DeLone, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S2-01-16, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0615, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0938-AR04
RIN: 0938-AS27
HHS--CMS
49. CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and Hospital and Extended
Care Services Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-8062-N)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395e-2(b)(2); Social Security Act, sec.
1813(b)(2)
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 15, 2016.
Abstract: This annual notice announces the inpatient hospital
deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance
amounts for services furnished in calendar year 2017 under Medicare's
Hospital Insurance program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute
specifies the formula used to determine these amounts.
Statement of Need: The Social Security Act (the Act) requires the
Secretary to publish annually the amounts of the inpatient hospital
deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance
applicable for services furnished in the following CY.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1813 of the Act provides for an
inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable
by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary.
It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from
the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended
care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires us to determine
and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible
and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts
applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
Alternatives: None. This notice implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total costs will be adjusted for CY
2017.
Risks: None. Notice informs the public of the 2017 premium.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Clare McFarland, Deputy Director, Medicare and
Medicaid Cost Estimates Group, Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, MS:
N3-26-00, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6390, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS70
HHS--CMS
50. CY 2018 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and Hospital and
Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-8065-N)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395e-2(b)(2); Social Security Act, sec.
1813 (b)(2)
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 15, 2017.
Abstract: This annual notice announces the inpatient hospital
deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance
amounts for services furnished in calendar year 2018 under Medicare's
Hospital Insurance program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute
specifies the formula used to determine these amounts.
Statement of Need: The Social Security Act (the Act) requires the
Secretary to publish, in September each year, the amounts of the
inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services
coinsurance applicable for services furnished in the following CY.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1813 of the Act provides for an
inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable
by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary.
It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from
the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended
care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires us to determine
and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible
and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts
applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
Alternatives: None. This notice implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total costs will be adjusted for CY
2018.
Risks: None. Notice informs the public of the 2018 premium.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Clare McFarland, Deputy Director, Medicare and
Medicaid Cost Estimates Group, Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, MS:
N3-26-00, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6390, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT05
HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Final Rule Stage
51. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 1302
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will amend the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting Systems (AFCARS). It will modify requirements
for title IV-E foster care agencies to collect and report data on
children in out-of-home care and children under title IV-E adoption or
guardianship agreements with the title IV-E agency.
Statement of Need: This rule will amend the Adoption and Foster
Care Analysis and Reporting Systems (AFCARS). It will modify
requirements for title IV-E foster care agencies to collect and report
data on children in out-of-home care and children under title IV-E
adoption or guardianship agreements with the title IV-E agency.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 479 of the Social Security Act (the
Act) mandates HHS regulate a data collection
[[Page 94555]]
system for national adoption and foster care data. Section 474(f) of
the Act requires HHS to impose penalties for non-compliant AFCARS data.
Section 1102 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate
regulations necessary for the effective administration of the functions
for which HHS is responsible under the Act.
Alternatives:
1. ACF considered whether other existing data sets could yield
similar information. ACF determined that AFCARS is the only
comprehensive case-level data set on the incidence and experiences of
children who are in out-of-home care under the placement and care of
the title IV-E agency or who are adopted under a title IV-E adoption
assistance agreement.
2. We also received state comments to the 2016 SNPRM citing they
have few Indian children in foster care, if any. ACF considered
alternatives to collecting ICWA-related data through AFCARS, such as
providing an exemption from reporting but alternative approaches are
not feasible due to:
AFCARS data must be comprehensive per section 479(c)(3) of
the Act and exempting some states from reporting the ICWA-related data
elements is not consistent with this statutory mandate, and would
render it difficult to use this data for development of national
policies.
Section 474(f) of the Act provides for mandatory penalties
on the title IVE agency for non-compliance on AFCARS data that is based
on the total amount expended by the title IV-E agency for
administration of foster care activities. Therefore, we are not
authorized to permit some states to be subject to a penalty and not
others. In addition, allowing states an alternate submission process
would complicate and/or prevent the assessment of penalties per
1355.47, including penalties for failure to submit data files free of
cross-file errors, missing, invalid, or internally inconsistent data,
or tardy transactions for each data element of applicable records.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that costs for the final
rule will be approximately $36 million. Benefits are that we will have
an updated AFCARS regulation for the first time since 1993 and we will
have national data on Indian children as defined in ICWA.
Risks: If we do not implement this final rule, agencies will
continue to report information to AFCARS that is not up to date with
revisions to the statute over the years. Further, without regulations,
we are unable to implement the statutory penalty provisions. In
addition, we will not collect comprehensive national data on the status
of American Indian/Alaska Native children to whom the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) applies and historical data on children in foster
care. We can expect criticisms from federally recognized Indian tribes
and other stakeholders that the absence of ICWA data prevents
understanding both how ICWA is implemented and how to address and
reduce the disproportionate number of American Indian/Alaska Native
children in foster care nationally.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/09/15 80 FR 7131
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/10/15
Final Action........................ 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Joe Bock, Deputy Associate Commissioner, CB,
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 205-
8618, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC47
HHS--ACF
52. Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization of Child Support
Enforcement Programs
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 301 to 305; 45 CFR 307.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This regulation will make child support program
operations and enforcement procedures more flexible and more efficient
by recognizing advancements in technology and the move toward
electronic communications and document management. The regulation will
improve and simplify program operations, remove outmoded limitations to
program innovation to better serve families, and clarify and correct
technical provisions in existing regulations.
Statement of Need: This regulation will make child support program
operations and enforcement procedures more flexible and more efficient
by recognizing advancements in technology and the move toward
electronic communications and document management. The regulation will
improve and simplify program operations, remove outmoded limitations to
program innovation to better serve families, and clarify and correct
technical provisions in existing regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: This final rule is published under the
authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act (Act), 42
U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to
publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, which may be
necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which
the Secretary is responsible under the Act.
Additionally, the Secretary has authority under section 452(a)(1)
of the Act to establish such standards for State programs for locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child
support as he[she] determines to be necessary to assure that such
programs will be effective. Rules promulgated under section 452(a)(1)
must meet two conditions. First, the Secretary's designee must find
that the rule meets one of the statutory objectives of locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child
support. Second, the Secretary's designee must determine that the rule
is necessary to assure that such programs will be effective.
Section 454(13) requires a State plan to provide that the State
will comply with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program
for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining
support orders, and collecting support payments and provide that
information requests by parents who are residents of other States be
treated with the same priority as requests by parents who are residents
of the State submitting the plan.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While there are some costs
associated with these regulations, they are not economically
significant as defined under E.O. 12866. However, the regulation is
significant and has been reviewed by OMB.
An area with associated Federal costs is modifying the child
support statewide automated system for onetime system enhancements to
accommodate new requirements such as notices, applications, and
identifying noncustodial parents receiving SSI. This
[[Page 94556]]
has a cost of approximate $26,484,000. There is a cost of $26,460,000
to modify statewide IVD systems for the 54 States or Territories at a
cost of $100 an hour (with an assumption that 27 States will implement
the optional requirements). A cost of $35,044 is designated to CMS'
costs for State plan amendments and cooperative agreements. Another
area associated with Federal costs is that of job services. We allow
FFP for certain job services for noncustodial parents responsible for
paying child support. The estimated total average annual net cost (over
the first five years) of the job services proposal is $26,096,596 with
$18,592,939 as the Federal cost. Thus, the total net cost of the final
rule is $52,591,640, and the total Federal costs is $36,074,061. These
regulations will improve the delivery of child support services,
support the efforts of noncustodial parents to provide for their
children, and improve the efficiency of operations.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Yvette Riddick, Director, Division of Policy, OCSE,
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 401-
4885, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC50.
BILLING CODE 4150-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Fall 2016 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. The DHS mission statement provides the following: ``With honor and
integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our
values.'' Fulfilling this mission 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.
Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1)
Prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and manage our
borders, (3) enforce and administer our immigration laws, (4) safeguard
and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience to disasters. In
addition, we must specifically focus on maturing and strengthening the
homeland security enterprise itself.
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 mission, see the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall
2016 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's responsibility
areas. These regulations will improve the Department's ability to
accomplish its mission. Also, the regulations we have identified in
this year's regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives
such as the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007).
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 regulations have on small
businesses. DHS and its components continue to emphasize the use of
plain language in our regulatory documents to promote a better
understanding of regulations and to promote increased public
participation in the Department's regulations.
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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1615-AC03.......................... Expansion of Provisional Unlawful
Presence Waivers of
Inadmissibility.
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.
[[Page 94557]]
1651-AB05.......................... Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
Pursuant to sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012), DHS
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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1625-AB38.......................... Updates to Maritime Security.
1651-AA70.......................... Importer Security Filing and
Additional Carrier Requirements.
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 2016 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from
several 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), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion of the regulations that
comprise the DHS fall 2016 regulatory plan.
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. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several
regulations that directly support these commitments and goals.
Regulations To Facilitate Innovation and Employment Creation
International Entrepreneurs. USCIS has proposed to establish a
program that would allow for consideration of parole into the United
States, on 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. Upon reviewing the public comments
received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), USCIS
will develop a final rule.
Employment Creation (EB-5) Immigrant Regulations DHS will propose
to amend its regulations governing the employment-based, fifth
preference (EB-5) immigrant investor category and EB-5 regional centers
to modernize the EB-5 program based on current economic realities and
to reflect statutory changes made to the program. DHS will propose to
update the regulations to include the following areas: Priority date
retention, increases to the required investment amounts, revision of
the Targeted Employment Area requirements, clarification of the
regional center designation and continued program participation
requirements, and further definition of grounds for terminating
regional centers.
Improvements to the Immigration System
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. The rule will also propose to require that applicants and
petitioners exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial
review of an unfavorable decision. This rule will streamline the
procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the
efficiency of the adjudication process.
[[Page 94558]]
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS is working on regulatory
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking) and U
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). Through these
initiatives, USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency in eligibility,
application, and procedural requirements for these vulnerable groups,
their advocates, and the community. These regulations 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 regulatory projects in this fall 2016 regulatory
plan and in the agenda contribute to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities.
Seafarers' Access to Maritime Facilities. This regulatory action is
necessary to implement section 811 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2010, which requires facility owners and operators to ensure shore
access for seafarers and other individuals. This regulation applies to
owners and operators of facilities regulated by the Coast Guard under
the Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 2002. This regulation helps
ensure that owners and operators provide seafarers assigned to vessels
moored at the facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen's welfare
and labor organizations with the ability to board and depart vessels to
access the shore through the facility in a timely manner and at no cost
to the seafarer.
Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012
Legislation. The Coast Guard is working to improve safety in the
commercial fishing industry, which remains one of the most hazardous
occupations in the United States. In 2016, the Coast Guard withdrew a
rulemaking effort that had been superseded by statute, and instead
proposed a rule to implement relevant mandatory provisions of the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2010 and Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2012. The proposed rule would add new
requirements for safety equipment, vessel examinations, vessel safety
standards, the documentation of maintenance, and the termination of
unsafe operations. These requirements would affect an estimated 36,115
existing commercial fishing vessels. This rule is intended to reduce
the risk of future fishing vessel casualties and, if a casualty does
occur, to minimize the adverse impacts to crew and enable them to have
the maximum opportunity to survive and to be rescued. he Coast Guard
provided a public comment period of 180 days, ending in December 2016,
and will consider all comments when developing the final rule.
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 regulations 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 regulations 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, through an electronic data
interchange system, of information to CBP pertaining to cargo to be
brought into the United States or to be sent from the United
[[Page 94559]]
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 intends to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the next fiscal year 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.
The Department of the Treasury retained certain regulatory authority of
the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function (see the
Department of the Treasury Regulatory Plan). In addition to its plans
to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, CBP, in the
coming year, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that
will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs.
For a discussion of CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue
function, see the regulatory plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is to
support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we
work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare
for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all
hazards. FEMA's ethos is to serve the Nation by helping its people and
first responders, especially when they are most in need. FEMA will
promulgate several rulemakings to support its mission, one of which we
highlight below.
Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
Regulations to Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). The rule proposes to amend existing
FEMA regulations to implement Executive Order 13690, ``Establishing a
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further
Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.'' FEMA is also proposing
a supplementary policy that would further clarify how FEMA applies the
FFRMS. FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 22,
2016 and will work on finalizing that rule in the coming fiscal year.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2017.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the principal
criminal investigative arm of DHS 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 the coming year, ICE will focus its
rulemaking efforts on increasing security in the area of student and
exchange visitor programs.
Eligibility Checks of Nominated and Current Designated School Officials
of Schools That Enroll F and M Nonimmigrant Students and of Exchange
Visitor Program-Designated Sponsors of J Nonimmigrants
DHS will issue a rule proposing to strengthen the mechanism for
approving user access to one of its data-management systems, the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). DHS and the
Department of State, rely on principal designated school officials,
designated school officials, responsible officers, and alternate
responsible officers (collectively, P/DSOs, DSOs and ROs/AROs) as key
links in the process to mitigate potential threats to national security
and to ensure compliance with immigration law by aliens admitted into
the United States in F, J, or M nonimmigrant status. Through this rule,
DHS would require that anyone nominated to serve as a P/DSO, DSO, or
RO/ARO receive a favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process assessment
prior to their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS.
The primary benefit of this rule would be to reduce the potential for
fraud.
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
[[Page 94560]]
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 program
mandating that high-risk chemical facilities in the United States
develop and implement security plans satisfying risk-based performance
standards established by DHS.
The CFATS regulations have been in effect since 2007. On August 18,
2014, the Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) seeking public comment on ways to make the program more
effective. The Department will continue this rulemaking effort and
intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM
will propose modifications to CFATS based on the public comments
received in response to the ANPRM and on program implementation
experience. The NPRM will also propose modifications to CFATS in order
to align the existing regulation with the requirements of the 2014
legislation. Through the rule, NPPD seeks to harmonize the regulation
with its statutory authority and to make 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.
For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing regulations related
to requirements for surface transportation included in the 9/11 Act.
These rulemakings will include the following ones:
Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will
propose regulations requiring higher-risk public transportation
agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), railroad
carriers (freight and passenger), and over-the-road bus (OTRB) owner/
operators to conduct security training for frontline employees. This
regulation will implement sections 1408 (public transportation), 1517
(railroads), and 1531(e) and 1534 (OTRBs) of the 9/11 Act. In
compliance with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent
provisions of the 9/11 Act, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
will include identification of which employees are required to receive
security training and the content of that training. The NPRM will also
propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive materials, as
required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessments and Security
Plans. TSA will publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) regarding a future rulemaking that will propose requiring
higher-risk public transportation agencies (including rail mass transit
and bus systems), railroads (freight and passenger), and OTRB owner/
operators to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop/implement
security plans. This regulation will propose to implement sections 1405
(public transportation), 1512 (railroads), and 1531 (OTRBs) of the 9/11
Act.
Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will
propose regulations requiring security threat assessments for security
coordinators and other frontline employees of certain public
transportation agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems),
railroads (freight and passenger), and OTRB owner/operators. The NPRM
will also include proposed provisions to implement TSA's statutory
requirement to recover its cost of vetting through user fees. This
regulation will implement sections 1414 (public transportation), 1522
(railroads), and 1531(e)(2) (over-the-road buses) of the 9/11 Act.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2017.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2017
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise the DHS fall regulatory plan follows.
DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Proposed Rule Stage
53. 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 nine 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
[[Page 94561]]
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................................ 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
54. 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................................ 08/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy,
Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone:
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov.
[[Page 94562]]
RIN: 1615-AA67
DHS--USCIS
55. 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.
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................................ 06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
56. Improvement of the Employment Creation Immigrant Regulations
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DHS proposes to amend its regulations governing the
employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant entrepreneur
category and EB-5 regional centers to modernize the EB-5 program based
on current economic realities and to reflect statutory changes made to
the program. DHS is proposing to update the regulations to include the
following areas: Priority date retention, increases to the required
investment amounts, revision of the Targeted Employment Area
requirements, clarification of the regional center designation and
continued program participation requirements, and further definition of
grounds for terminating regional centers.
Statement of Need: The proposed regulatory changes are necessary to
reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies, more accurately
reflect existing and future economic realities, improve operational
efficiencies to provide stakeholders with a higher level of
predictability and transparency in the adjudication process, and
enhance program integrity by clarifying key eligibility requirements
for program participation and further detailing the processes required.
Given the complexities involved in adjudicating benefit requests in the
EB-5 program, along with continued program integrity concerns and
increasing adjudication processing times, DHS has decided to revise the
existing regulations to modernize key areas of the program.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration Act (INA) authorizes the
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to administer and enforce
the immigration and nationality laws including establishing regulations
deemed necessary to carry out his authority, and section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, authorizes the Secretary to issue
regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA section 103(a). INA section
203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the Secretary with
authority to make visas available to immigrants seeking to engage in a
new commercial enterprise in which the immigrant has invested and which
will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment
for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. Further, section 610 of Public Law
102-395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) created the Immigrant Investor Pilot
Program and authorized the Secretary to set aside visas for individuals
who invest in regional centers created for the purpose of concentrating
pooled investment in defined economic zones, and was last amended by
Public Law 107-273.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of these amendments and
resulting modernized program, DHS believes that regional centers,
entrepreneurs, and the Federal each benefit. This rule would benefit
regional centers by clarifying the requirements for designation and
continued participation in the EB-5 program, making the application
process more transparent for regional centers and streamlined to
improve DHS operational efficiencies. The rule would benefit
entrepreneurs seeking to participate in the program by providing the
opportunity to mitigate the harsh consequences of unexpected changes to
business conditions through priority date retention in limited
circumstances. This rule would also provide a more transparent process
for entrepreneurs
[[Page 94563]]
seeking to participate in the regional center program by providing
increased consistency and predictability of adjudications through the
clarified regional center continued program participation requirements.
These changes will also streamline the adjudication process and improve
DHS operational efficiencies, resulting in improved adjudication times.
Finally, the Federal Government will benefit from clarifications and
enhancements to the EB-5 program to strengthen program integrity,
reducing the risk of fraud and national security concerns in the
program, as well as improving operational efficiencies to reduce
overall program costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Lori S. MacKenzie, Division Chief, Operations
Policy & Performance, Immigrant Investor Program, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 357-9214, Email:
uscis.dhs.gov">lori.s.mackenzie@uscis.dhs.gov.
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB69
RIN: 1615-AC07
DHS--USCIS
Final Rule Stage
57. 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 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.................. 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
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,
Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone:
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov.
RIN: 1615-AA59
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,
[[Page 94564]]
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.......................... 05/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone:
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov.
RIN: 1615-AB81
DHS--USCIS
59. International Entrepreneur
Priority: Other Significant.
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) proposed to
amend its regulations implementing the Secretary of Homeland Security's
discretionary parole authority to increase and enhance
entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States.
The rule would add new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole
on a case-by-case basis with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up
entities whose entry into the United States would provide a significant
public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for
rapid business growth and job creation. Such potential would be
indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital
investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful
investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain
Federal, State or local government entities.
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). This regulation explains and clarifies
how DHS determines what provides, per the INA, a significant public
benefit to the U.S. economy 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
[[Page 94565]]
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................................ 08/31/16 81 FR 60129
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/17/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Division 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, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov.
RIN: 1615-AC04
DHS--USCIS
60. Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program
Improvements Affecting Highly-Skilled H-1B Nonimmigrant Workers
Priority: Economically 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: In December 2015, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) proposed 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................................ 12/31/15 80 FR 81900
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/29/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16 .......................
Final Rule Effective................ 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
[[Page 94566]]
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.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Division 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, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov.
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB97
RIN: 1615-AC05
DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)
Proposed Rule Stage
61. Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012
Legislation
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-281
CFR Citation: 46 CFR 28; 46 CFR 42.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, CGAA 2010 Requirements in effect
since 10/15/2010.
Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes to implement those requirements
of 2010 and 2012 legislation that pertain to uninspected commercial
fishing industry vessels and that took effect upon enactment of the
legislation but that, to be implemented, require amendments to Coast
Guard regulations affecting those vessels. The applicability of the
regulations is being changed, and new requirements are being added to
safety training, equipment, vessel examinations, vessel safety
standards, the documentation of maintenance, and the termination of
unsafe operations. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's maritime
safety mission.
Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposes to align its commercial
fishing industry vessel regulations with the mandatory provisions of
2010 and 2012 legislation passed by Congress that took effect upon
enactment. The alignments would change the applicability of current
regulations, and add new requirements for safety equipment, vessel
examinations, vessel safety standards, the documentation of
maintenance, and the termination of unsafe operations. This rule only
proposes to implement these legislative mandates, would exercise no
Coast Guard regulatory discretion, and would promote the Coast Guard's
maritime safety mission.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that, as a result of
this rulemaking, owners and operators of certain commercial fishing
vessels would incur additional annualized costs, discounted at 7
percent, of $34.2 million. We estimate the annualized cost, discounted
at 7 percent, to government of $5.4 million, for a total annualized
cost of $39.7 million. For commercial fishing vessels that operate
beyond 3 nautical miles, the cost of this rulemaking would involve
provisions for carriage of survival craft, recordkeeping of lifesaving
and fire equipment maintenance, and dockside safety examinations once
every 5 years. Also, certain newly built commercial fishing vessels
would have to undergo survey and classification. We believe that the
rule based on Congressional mandates will address a wide range of
causes of commercial fishing vessel accidents and supports the main
goal of improving safety and survivability in the commercial fishing
industry. The primary benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in
safety and a resulting decrease in the risk of accidents and their
consequences, primarily fatalities. We estimate an annualized benefit
of $7.1 to $9.4 million from this rule, discounted at 7 percent.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/21/16 81 FR 40437
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 08/15/16 81 FR 53986
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/19/16 .......................
Second NPRM Comment Period End...... 12/18/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2012-0025.
Agency Contact: Jack Kemerer, Project Manager, CG-CVC-3, Department
of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501, Phone: 202 372-1249,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA77
RIN: 1625-AB85
DHS--USCG
Final Rule Stage
62. Seafarers' Access to Maritime Facilities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 U.S.C. 1231; Pub. L. 111-281,
sec. 811
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 101.112(b); 33 CFR 105.200; 33 CFR 105.237; 33
CFR 105.405.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This regulatory action will implement section 811 of the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281), which requires
the owner/operator of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard under the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) (MTSA)
to provide a system that enables seafarers and certain other
individuals to transit between vessels moored at the facility and the
facility gate in a timely manner at no cost to the seafarer or other
individual. Ensuring that such access through a facility is consistent
with the security requirements in MTSA is part of the Coast Guard's
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) mission.
Statement of Need: The Coast Guard's final rule would require each
owner or operator of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard to
implement a system that provides seafarers and other individuals with
access between vessels moored at the facility and the facility gate, in
a timely manner and at no cost to the seafarer or other individual.
Generally, transiting through a facility is the only way that a
seafarer or other individual can egress to shore beyond the facility to
access basic shoreside businesses and services, and meet with family
members and other personnel that do not hold a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential. This proposed rule would help to ensure that
no facility owner or operator denies or makes it impractical for
seafarers or other individuals to transit through the facility, and
would require them to document their access procedures in their
Facility Security Plans. This final rule would implement section 811 of
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that, as a result of
this rulemaking, owners or operators of a facility regulated by the
Coast Guard would incur additional annualized costs, discounted at 7
percent, of $2.82 million. We estimate the annualized cost, discounted
at 7 percent, to government of $8,000 for a total annualized cost of
$2.83 million.
[[Page 94567]]
Owners and operators of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard will
incur costs to implement a system that provides seafarers and other
individuals with access between the shore and vessels moored at the
facility. We believe that the rule based on Congressional mandates will
provide access through facilities for an average of 907 seafarers and
other covered individuals that were otherwise denied access annually,
thus ensuring the safety, health and welfare of seafarers. The rule
will also reduce regulatory uncertainty by harmonizing regulations with
Sec. 811 of Pub. L. 111281 and conforms to the intent of the ISPS Code.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/29/14 79 FR 77981
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 05/27/15 80 FR 30189
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/01/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 08/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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: LCDR Kevin McDonald, Project Manager, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr.
Avenue SE., Commandant (CG-FAC-2), STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-
7501, Phone: 202 372-1168, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1625-AC15
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: The Trade Act of 2002 authorizes CBP to
promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of
electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data
interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs
the United States by any mode of commercial transportation. Under the
Trade Act, the required cargo information is that which is reasonably
necessary to ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws
enforced and administered by CBP.
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................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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
[[Page 94568]]
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
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/26/13 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/26/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 94569]]
DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Prerule Stage
65. Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessments and Security Plans
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1405, 1512,
and 1531
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582
(new); 49 CFR 1584 (new); . . .
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for freight
railroads and passenger railroads is due no later than 12 months after
date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2009, Rule for over-the-road buses is
due no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 9/11
Act.
According to sec. 1512 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), a final regulation for freight railroads and
passenger railroads is due no later than 12 months after the date of
enactment. According to sec. 1531 of the 9/11 Act, a final regulation
for over-the-road buses is due no later than 18 months after the date
of enactment.
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will
propose a new regulation to address the security of higher-risk freight
railroads, public transportation agencies, passenger railroads, and
over-the-road buses in accordance with requirements of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The
regulation will take into consideration any current security assessment
and planning requirements or best practices.
Statement of Need: Vulnerability assessments and security planning
are important and effective tools for averting or mitigating potential
attacks by those with malicious intent that 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 1405, 1512, and
1531 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007).
Alternatives:
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
vulnerability assessments and security planning of higher-risk surface
transportation operations, TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the
risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
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].
Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, 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: 571 227-5839,
Email: [email protected].
Traci Klemm, 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: 571 227-3596, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Merged with 1652-AA58, Merged
with 1652-AA60
RIN: 1652-AA56
DHS--TSA
Proposed Rule Stage
66. Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1402, 1408,
1501, 1517, 1531, and 1534
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1500; 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 (9/11 Act), (121
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), 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. According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 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 1402, 1408, 1501,
1517, 1531, and 1534 of Pub. L. 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: Owner/operators would incur costs
training their employees, developing a
[[Page 94570]]
training plan, maintaining training records, and participating in
inspections for compliance. Some owner/operators would also incur
additional costs associated with assigning security coordinators and
reporting significant security incidents to TSA. TSA would incur costs
associated with reviewing owner/operators' training plans, registering
owner/operators' security coordinators, responding to owner/operators'
reported significant security incidents, and conducting inspection for
compliance with this rule. As part of TSA's risk-based security,
benefits include mitigating potential attacks by heightening awareness
of employees on the frontline. In addition, by designating security
coordinators and reporting significant security concerns to TSA, TSA
has a direct line for communicating threats and receiving information
necessary to analyze trends and potential threats across all modes of
transportation.
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................................ 11/00/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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].
Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, 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: 571 227-5839,
Email: [email protected].
Traci Klemm, 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: 571 227-3596, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged
with 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA55
DHS--TSA
67. Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1512, 1520, 1522,
and 1531
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and
immigration status check for all public transportation frontline
employees is due no later than 12 months after date of enactment.
Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and immigration status
check for all railroad frontline employees is due no later than 12
months after date of enactment.
Sections 1411 and 1520 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require background checks of frontline public
transportation and railroad employees not later than 1 year from the
date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
Abstract: The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) requires vetting of certain railroad, public
transportation, and over-the-road bus employees. Through this
rulemaking, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to
propose the mechanisms and procedures to conduct this required vetting.
TSA previously intended to include vetting requirements for these
populations in a related rulemaking called Standardized Vetting,
Adjudication, and Redress Services (SVAR). However, TSA now plans to
proceed with a separate rulemaking in order to provide vetting more
expediently for these populations. This regulation is related to 1652-
AA55, Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees.
Statement of Need: Employee vetting 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:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process of determining
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: 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].
Michael J. Pickford, Lead Economist, 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
227-2268, Email: [email protected].
Laura Gaudreau, Attorney--Advisor, 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: 571 227-1088, Fax: 571 227-1378,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Split from 1652-AA61, Related to 1652-AA55
RIN: 1652-AA69
[[Page 94571]]
DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)
Proposed Rule Stage
68. Eligibility Checks of Nominated and Current Designated School
Officials of Schools That Enroll F and M Nonimmigrant Students and of
Exchange Visitor Program-Designated Sponsors of J Nonimmigrants
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1003
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The rule would improve the capability of the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to oversee access to the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) for designated school
officials (DSOs) at schools certified to enroll F and M nonimmigrant
students and for responsible officers (ROs) and alternate responsible
officers (AROs) that oversee designated sponsors' J nonimmigrant
participants in exchange programs. Establishment of an eligibility
check process for certain officials would improve oversight prior to
permitting access to SEVIS and prior to appointment or continued
eligibility as such an official. This rule would better position DHS to
identify, intervene and prevent possible criminal activities or threats
to national security that could result from non-compliance.
Statement of Need: The rule would strengthen the mechanism for
approving user access to SEVIS. DHS, as well as the Department of State
(DOS), rely on principal designated school officials, designated school
officials, responsible officers, and alternate responsible officers
(collectively, P/DSOs P/DSOs and ROs/AROs) as key links in the process
to mitigate potential threats to national security and ensure
compliance with immigration law from aliens admitted into the United
States in F, J, or M nonimmigrant status. Through this rule, DHS would
require that anyone nominated to serve as a P/DSO or RO/ARO receive a
favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process (SAAP) assessment prior to
their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Sections 101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA) 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F),
(J) and (M), which establish the F-1, J-1, and M-1 classifications (and
associated derivative classifications).
Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1372, which authorized
the following:
Creation of a program to collect current and ongoing
information provided by schools and EVP sponsors regarding F, J, or M
nonimmigrants during their stays in the United States;
Use of electronic reporting technology where practicable;
and
DHS certification of schools to participate in F-1 or M-1
student enrollment.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 2 (HSPD-2),
Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies, which, following the
USA PATRIOT Act, requires DHS to conduct periodic reviews of all
institutions certified to receive nonimmigrant students and exchange
visitor program students that include checks for compliance with
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and authorizes termination of
certification for institutions that fail to comply. See 37 Weekly Comp.
Pres. Docs. 1570, 1571-72 (October 29, 2001).
Section 502 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002, 8 U.S.C. 1762, which directs DHS to review
compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 8 U.S.C.
1372 and INA section 101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), of all schools approved to receive F, J or
M nonimmigrants within two years of enactment and every two years
thereafter.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is in the process of determining
the costs and benefits which would be incurred by regulated individuals
with access to SEVIS, as well as the costs and benefits to DHS and DOS,
to comply with the requirements of this rule. The rule would impose new
vetting requirements for individuals prior to permitting access to
SEVIS or continued eligibility for such access, which include an
application process for the individuals and an approval process for DHS
and DOS. The primary benefit of this rule would be to reduce the
potential for fraud.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: 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].
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, STOP 5600,
500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536-5600, Phone: 703 603-3400,
Email: [email protected].
Brad Tuttle, Attorney Advisor, Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5000, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA71
DHS--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Final Rule Stage
69. Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: E.O. 11988, as amended; E.O. 13690
CFR Citation: 44 CFR 9.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes
to amend its regulations at 44 CFR part 9 ``Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands'' to implement Executive Order 13690, which
establishes the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). 44 CFR
part 9 describes FEMA's process for determining whether the proposed
location for an action falls within a floodplain. In addition, for
those projects that would fall within a floodplain, part 9 describes
FEMA's framework for deciding whether and how to complete the action in
the floodplain, in light of the risk of flooding. Consistent with
Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS, the proposed rule would change how
FEMA defines a ``floodplain'' with respect to certain actions.
Additionally, under the proposed rule, FEMA would use natural systems,
ecosystem process, and nature-based approaches, where practicable, when
developing alternatives to locating a proposed action in the
floodplain.
[[Page 94572]]
Statement of Need: It is the policy of the United States to improve
the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of
flooding. These impacts are anticipated to increase over time due to
the effects of climate change and other threats. Losses caused by
flooding affect the environment, our economic prosperity, and public
health and safety, each of which affects our national security.
The Federal Government must take action, informed by the best-
available and actionable science, to improve the Nation's preparedness
and resilience against flooding. Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977,
Floodplain Management; requires executive departments and agencies
(agencies) to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain
development wherever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA has
implemented Executive Order 11988 through its regulations in 44 CFR
part 9.
On January 30, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13690,
Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) and a
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.
Executive Order 13690 amended Executive Order 11988 and established the
FFRMS. The FFRMS is a flexible framework to increase resilience against
flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains. Under the
FFRMS, an agency may establish the floodplain for Federally Funded
Projects using any of the following approaches: (1) Climate-Informed
Science Approach (CISA): Utilizing the best-available, actionable
hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and
future changes in flooding based on climate science; (2) Freeboard
Value Approach (FVA): Freeboard (base flood elevation + X, where X is 3
feet for critical actions and 2 feet for other actions); (3) 0.2
percent annual chance Flood Approach (0.2 PFA): 0.2 percent annual
chance flood (also known as the 500-year flood); or (4) the elevation
and flood hazard area that result from using any other method
identified in an update to the FFRMS.
When Executive Order 13690 was issued, FEMA evaluated the
application of Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS with respect to its
existing authorities and programs. The FFRMS establishes a flexible
standard to improve resilience against the impact of flooding to design
for the intended life of the Federal investment. FEMA supports this
principle. With more than $260 billion in flood damages across the
Nation since 1980, it is necessary to take action to responsibly use
Federal funds, and FEMA must ensure it does not needlessly make
repeated Federal investments in the same structures after flooding
events. In addition, the FFRMS will help support the thousands of
communities across the Country that have strengthened their State and
local floodplain management codes and standards to ensure that
infrastructure and other community assets are resilient to flood risk.
FEMA recognizes that the need to make structures resilient also
requires a flexible approach to adapt for the needs of the Federal
agency, local community, and the circumstances surrounding each project
or action.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives: FEMA proposes to use the FFRMS-FVA to establish the
floodplain for non-critical actions. For critical actions, FEMA would
allow the use of the FFRMS-FVA floodplain or the FFRMS-CISA, but only
if the elevation established under the FFRMS-CISA is higher than the
elevation established under the FFRMS-FVA.
FEMA considered proposing the use of the FFRMS-CISA instead of
FFRMS-FVA to reflect the FFRMS's designation of the FFRMS-CISA as the
preferred approach and to reflect that the FFRMS-FVA sets a general
level of protection, whereas FFRMS-CISA uses a more site-specific
approach to predict flood risk based on future conditions.
FEMA also considered whether it should alter its proposal for use
of the FFRMS-CISA in relation to the FFRMS-FVA (or FFRMS-0.2PFA). FEMA
could choose a more protective approach in which it would determine the
elevations established under FFRMS-CISA, FFRMS-FVA and the FFRMS-0.2PFA
for critical actions and only allow the applicant to use the highest of
the three elevations. This approach would ensure that applicants were
building to the most protective level, would avoid potential
inconsistencies with FEMA's policy to encourage adoption of freeboard
standards by local communities, and would prevent a scenario where an
applicant was allowed to build to a lower elevation than previously
required for critical actions under FEMA's implementation of Executive
Order 11988.
Also alternatively, FEMA could choose to allow use of the FFRMS-
CISA, even if the resulting elevation is lower than the application of
the FFRMS-FVA. This approach would give FEMA and its grantees more
flexibility in implementing the standard, would enable FEMA and its
grantees to build to an elevation based on the best available science
taking criticality into account, and would provide a pathway to relief
for those areas that experience declining flood risks.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs of the
proposed rule would be from FEMA's Individual Assistance, Public
Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs, as well as
administrative costs. FEMA expects minimal costs associated with its
Grants Program Directorate and Integrated Public Alert Warning System
programs because these programs do not fund new construction or
substantial improvement projects as defined in 44 CFR part 9. These
projects are also by nature, typically resilient from flooding. FEMA
facilities may also be subject to additional requirements due to the
implementation of the proposed rule.
FEMA estimates that the total additional grants costs as a result
of the proposed rule would be between $906,696 and $7.8 million per
year for FEMA and between $301,906 and $2.6 million per year for grant
recipients due to the increased elevation or floodproofing requirements
of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
In addition, FEMA expects to incur some administrative costs as a
result of this proposed rule. FEMA estimates initial training costs of
around $100,000 the first two years after the rule is implemented, and
administrative and training costs of around $16,000 per year
thereafter.
FEMA estimates that the total annual cost of this rule after year
two would be between $6.1 million and $39.5 million.
FEMA estimates the quantified cost of this proposed rule over the
next 10 years would range between $60.1 million and $394.7 million. The
present value (PV) of these estimated costs using a 7 percent discount
rate would range between $42.9 million and $277.3 million. The PV using
a 3 percent discount rate would range between $52.0 million and $336.7
million. These costs would be split between FEMA (75 percent) and
recipients (25 percent) of FEMA grants in the floodplain.
FEMA anticipates that the benefits of the proposed rule would
justify the costs. FEMA is has provided qualitative benefits, including
the reduction in damage to properties and contents from future floods,
potential lives saved, public health and safety benefits, reduced
recovery time from floods, and increased community resilience to
flooding.
FEMA believes this proposed rule would result in savings in time
and money from a reduced recovery period after a flood and increased
safety of
[[Page 94573]]
individuals. Generally, if properties are protected, there would be
less damage, resulting in less cleanup time. In addition, higher
elevations help to protect people, leading to increased safety. FEMA is
unable to quantify these benefits, but improving the resiliency of
bridges has significant qualitative benefits, including: Protecting
evacuation and escape routes; limiting blockages of floodwaters passing
under the bridge that may lead to more severe flooding upstream; and,
avoiding the cost of replacing the bridge again if it is damaged during
a subsequent flood. Any estimates of these savings would be dependent
on the specific circumstances and FEMA is not able to provide a numeric
value on these savings.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/22/16 81 FR 57401
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/21/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kristin Fontenot, Office of Environmental and
Historic Preservation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
Phone: 202 646-2741, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1660-AA85
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fall 2016 Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2017
Introduction
As the nation's housing agency, HUD is committed to promoting
decent affordable housing and addressing housing conditions that
threaten the health of residents. There are still too many homes in the
U.S. with hazards that endanger the health and safety of occupants--
hazards within a home and hazards outside of a home.\1\ HUD's
Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year (FY 2017) focuses on two regulatory
actions; one to address lead-based paint hazards within homes
subsidized by HUD and a second to require that building or
substantially rehabilitating HUD subsidized homes be at new Federal
Flood Risk Management Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Language modeled on language from page 4 of HUD's 2009
Healthy Homes Strategic Plan. http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/library/hhi/hh_strategic_plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
revised its guidance on childhood lead poisoning in response to
recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention (ACCLPP), which concluded that a growing number of
scientific studies show that even low blood lead levels can cause
lifelong health effects. CDC accepted this recommendation. The elevated
blood lead level, established in 2012 as part of CDC's response to
ACCLPP, is lower than CDC's former blood lead level of concern. HUD's
lead-based paint hazard control regulations, which address lead-based
paint hazards in pre-1978 homes subsidized by HUD are based on the
CDC's former blood lead level of concern. With CDC's issuance of new
guidelines, HUD recognized that it was necessary to update HUD's lead-
based paint regulations. HUD commenced working to update its
regulations, but in the meantime, HUD revised its own guidelines for
evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in housing. HUD also
implemented CDC's recommended revised elevated blood lead level in its
lead hazard control programs--the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant
program and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program--in
the annual notices of funding availability (NOFAs) issued for these
programs commencing in fiscal year 2013.
On September 1, 2016, (81 FR 60304), HUD issued its proposed rule
that would formally adopt the approach used by CDC in its definition of
elevated blood lead level, and provides for more comprehensive testing
and evaluation where for housing where children under the age of 6 with
an elevated blood lead level reside.
On January 30, 2015, President Obama issued an Executive Order
(Executive Order 12690) establishing a flood management standard (the
Federal Flood Risk-Management Standard) that will reduce the risk and
cost of future flood disasters by requiring all Federal investments in
and affecting floodplains to meet higher flood risk standards. In the
United States, floods caused 4,586 deaths from 1959 to 2005. With
climate change and associated sea-level rise, flooding risks have
increased over time, and are anticipated to continue increasing. The
National Climate Assessment (May 2014), for example, projects that
extreme weather events, such as severe flooding, will persist
throughout the 21st century. Severe flooding can cause significant
damage to infrastructure, including buildings, roads, ports, industrial
facilities, and even coastal military installations. With more than
$260 billion in flood damage across the Nation since 1980, it is
necessary to take action to responsibly use Federal funds, and HUD must
ensure it does not wastefully make Federal investments in the same
structures after repeated flooding events.
In response to the President's Executive Order, HUD commenced work
on a proposed rule to revise its regulations governing floodplain
management to require, as part of the decision making process
established to ensure compliance with applicable Executive Orders 11988
and 13690, that HUD assisted or financed (including mortgage insurance)
project involving new construction or substantial improvement that is
situated in an area subject to floods be elevated or floodproofed
between 2 and 3 feet above the base flood elevation (BFE), as
determined by best available information. The proposed rule would also
revise HUD's Minimum Property Standards for one-to-four unit housing
under HUD mortgage insurance and low-rent public housing programs to
require that the lowest floor in both newly constructed and
substantially improved structures be built at least 2 feet above the
BFE base flood elevation as determined by best available information.
Building to these standards will, consistent with the executive orders,
increase resiliency to flooding, reduce the risk of flood loss,
minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and
promote sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more
accurate evaluation of flood risk that takes into account possible sea
level rise and increased development associated with population growth.
On October 28, 2016 (81 FR 74967), HUD issued its proposed rule
that would revises its regulations governing floodplain management to
implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
This Statement of Regulatory Priorities highlights these two rules,
[[Page 94574]]
which are HUD priority actions to complete during FY 2017.
Regulatory Priority: Responding To Elevated Blood Lead Levels in
Children Under the Age of 6
Childhood lead poisoning has long been recognized as causing
reduced intelligence, low attention span, reading and learning
disabilities, and has been linked to juvenile delinquency, behavioral
problems, and many other adverse health effects. Current reviews by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including by its
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and
Development have described these effects in detail. The removal of
lead-based gasoline and paint from commerce has drastically reduced the
number of children exposed to levels of lead associated with the most
significant among these problems. Data from the CDC's National Center
for Health Statistics show that mean blood lead levels among children
ages 1 to 5 have dropped over the years. However, national statistics
mask the fact that blood lead monitoring continues to find some
children exposed to elevated blood lead levels due to their specific
housing environment
Continued progress in lead paint abatement and interim control over
the last decade, such as through HUD's Lead Hazard Control Grant
programs, and HUD's enforcement of the Lead Disclosure statute has
meant further significant decreases in lead exposure among children.
Even so, there are a considerable number of assisted housing units that
have lead-based paint in which children under age 6 reside. In 2012,
the CDC issued guidance revising its definition of elevated blood lead
level in children under age 6 to be a blood lead level based on the
distribution of blood lead levels in the national population. Since
CDC's revision of its definition, HUD has applied the revised
definition to funds awarded under its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control
grant program and its Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant
program, and has updated its Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control
of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing to reflect this definition.
To further address this issue, as noted above, HUD issued a
proposed rule on September 1, 2016 that would amend HUD's lead-based
paint regulations on reducing blood lead levels in children under age 6
who reside in federally-owned or -assisted pre-1978 housing and
formally adopt the revised definition of ``elevated blood lead levels''
in children under the age of 6 in accordance with guidance of CDC, and
establish more comprehensive testing and evaluation procedures for the
housing where such children with an elevated blood lead level reside.
HUD intends to complete this rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2017.
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.
Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing
Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood Lead Levels
HUD Office: Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes.
Rulemaking Stage: Final Rule.
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 4821, and 4851
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 35.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will amend HUD's lead-based paint regulations
on reducing blood lead levels in children under age 6 who reside in
federally-owned or -assisted pre-1978 housing and formally adopt the
revised definition of ``elevated blood lead levels'' in children under
the age of 6 in accordance with 2012 CDC guidance, and establish more
comprehensive testing and evaluation procedures for the housing where
such children with an elevated blood lead level reside. Since CDC's
2012 revision of its definition of elevated blood lead level in
children under the age of 6, and pending HUD's commencement and
completion of rulemaking to formally adopt CDC's revised definition,
HUD applied the revised definition to funds awarded under its Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Control grant program and its Lead Hazard Reduction
Demonstration grant program, and HUD updated its own Guidelines for the
Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing to
reflect this definition. CDC is continuing to consider, with respect to
evolution of scientific and medical understanding, how best to identify
childhood blood lead levels for which environmental interventions are
recommended.
Through this rulemaking, HUD intends to formally adopt, through
regulation, the CDC's approach to the definition of ``elevated blood
lead levels'' in children under the age of 6 and addresses the
additional elements of the CDC guidance pertaining to assisted housing.
The final rule takes into consideration public comments received on
HUD's September 2016 proposed rule.
Statement of Need: Although HUD is already applying the CDC's 2012
revised definition of elevated blood level in its lead hazard control
notices of funding availability and in HUD guidelines, HUD's Lead Safe
Housing rule has not yet been updated to reflect the CDC's revised
definition of elevated blood lead levels, and to mandate adherence to
this definition by owners and managers of federally-owned or -assisted
pre-1978 housing requires rulemaking.
Alternatives: Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act), prescribes specific lead-based paint
hazard evaluation and reduction activities for federally-supported
housing. To mandate compliance with revised elevated blood lead levels
procedures requires rulemaking. While HUD issued updated guidelines in
2012 to encourage compliance with CDC's revised guidelines on elevated
blood lead levels, it takes rulemaking to require compliance with CDC's
revised definition of elevated blood lead levels in federally-supported
housing.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The costs and benefits associated
with the units affected during the first year of hazard evaluation and
reduction activities under the final rule include the present value of
future benefits associated with first year hazard reduction activities.
For example, the benefits from costs expended for first year activities
include the present value of lifetime earnings benefits for children
living in the affected unit during the first year, whether that child
continues living in that unit during the second and subsequent years
after hazard reduction activities does not affect the benefit
calculation, because the lowered lead exposure benefits all children
under age 6 who reside there during the effective period of the hazard
control measures (as noted above, typically 6 or 12 or more years). The
costs of ongoing lead-based paint maintenance in units covered by this
rulemaking are not considered in this analysis, because it is already
required by the original Lead Safe Housing Rule for housing covered by
this rulemaking.
[[Page 94575]]
Although many benefits of lead-based pain hazard reduction cannot
be quantified or monetized, such as quality of life considerations such
as adolescents' and adults' dissatisfaction with lower intelligence,
fewer skills, reduced education and job potential, criminal behavior,
unwed pregnancies, etc., HUD does not address monetized estimates of
the cognitive benefits of preventing children under age 6 from
developing elevated blood lead levels. Such benefits include avoiding
the costs of medical treatment for children with elevated blood lead
levels as well as increasing lifetime earnings associated with higher
IQs for children with lower blood lead levels. In addition, blood lead
levels of older children and adults living in the affected housing
units would be expected to fall as a result of this rulemaking,
although quantifying their blood lead changes is outside the scope of
analysis for this rulemaking. Thus, the estimates of benefits represent
a lower bound on the economic benefits of LBP hazard reduction because
there are many other health impacts for both adults and children from
lead exposure that are not quantified or monetized here. The analysis
of net benefits reflects benefits over time associated with the costs
incurred in the first year of hazard evaluation and reduction
activities under the final rule. For example, the benefits of costs
incurred in first year activities include the present value of lifetime
earnings benefits for children living in the affected unit during that
first year, and for children living in that unit during the second and
subsequent years after hazard reduction activities.
HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
Risks: While this rule addresses a public health issue, but poses
no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/01/16 81 FR 60304
Final............................... 12/00/
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Warren Friedman, Office of Lead Hazard Control and
Healthy Homes, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-7698.
RIN: 2501-AD77
Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Property
Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard
HUD Office: Office of the Secretary.
Rulemaking Stage: Final Rule.
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 4332; and Executive Order
11991, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.123
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 50, 58, and 200.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will revise HUD's regulations governing
floodplain management to require, as part of the decision making
process established to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11988
(Floodplain Management) as amended by Executive Order 13690
(Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process
for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input), that a HUD
assisted or financed (including mortgage insurance) project involving
new construction or substantial improvement that is situated in an area
subject to floods be elevated or floodproofed between 2 and 3 feet
above the base flood elevation (BFE), as determined by best available
information. The revision to 24 CFR part 55 uses the framework of E.O.
11988 which HUD has implemented for almost 40 years and does not change
the requirements and guidance specifying which actions require
elevation and floodproofing of structures. Specifically, the rule would
require that non-critical actions be elevated 2 feet above the BFE. In
addition, the rule would require that critical actions be elevated
above the greater of the 500-year floodplain or 3 feet above the BFE.
This rule also would enlarge the horizontal area of interest
commensurate with the vertical increase, but the rule does not change
the scope of actions to which the floodplain review process or
elevation requirements in 24 CFR part 55 apply. The rule would also
revise HUD's Minimum Property Standards for one-to-four unit housing
under HUD mortgage insurance and low-rent public housing programs to
require that the lowest floor in both newly constructed and
substantially improved structures be built at least 2 feet above the
BFE as determined by best available information. Building to these
standards will, consistent with the executive orders, increase
resiliency to flooding, reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and promote
sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more accurate
evaluation of flood risk that takes into account possible sea level
rise and increased development associated with population growth. This
rule also would revise a categorical exclusion available when HUD
performs the environmental review under the National Environmental
Policy Act and related Federal laws by making it consistent with
changes to a similar categorical exclusion that is available to HUD
grantees or other responsible entities when they perform these
environmental reviews. This change will make the review standard
identical regardless of whether HUD or a grantee is performing the
review. Elevation standards for manufactured housing receiving mortgage
insurance are not covered in this rule.
Statement of Need: This rule revises HUD's floodplain management
regulations in response to Executive Order 13690 and recommendations of
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). Executive Order
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input,
called for a new floodplain standard established with stakeholder
input. In addition to addressing risks identified by MitFLG associated
with the predicted sea level rise, the standards presented in this rule
also address a market failure of information regarding flood risk and
moral hazard associated with flood insurance and federal disaster
assistance. HUD is promulgating these new standards, which it must do
through rulemaking, in order to protect HUD's investments and ensure
uninterrupted provision of affordable housing.
Executive Order 13690 directed Federal agencies to avoid, to the
extent possible, adverse impacts associated with floodplain
development. Based on evidence from the National Climate Assessment and
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, MitFLG, consisting of
representatives from various federal agencies, proposed the
establishment of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS).
These standards, at least two feet of freeboard above base flood
elevation for non-critical actions and three feet of freeboard for
critical actions, address the Executive Order's directive of reducing
adverse impact development in floodplains which, as many studies
indicate, are expanding fairly rapidly.
[[Page 94576]]
The explicit standards provided in this rule are needed because
developers, homeowners and renters do not fully internalize the risk
and costs of potential flooding. There is evidence that many homeowners
are either not fully aware of the risk of a flood occurring or that
they discount the cost of a flood if it occurs. In some cases, owners
simply underestimate the risk of flooding.
Alternatives: In developing new floodplain management standards,
HUD considered several alternative approaches to establishing the
standard: Climate-informed science approach (CISA); freeboard value
approach (FVA); and the 0.2 percent annual chance flood approach
(0.2PFA). HUD chose the FVA over the CISA and 0.2PFA for a variety of
reasons. First, the FVA can be applied consistently to any area
participating in the NFIP. The FVA can be calculated using existing
flood maps. This is not true for the CISA standard unless HUD were to
establish criteria for every community regarding the application of
particular climate and greenhouse gas scenarios and associated impacts.
Rather than requiring this level of review and analysis, HUD chose the
more direct FVA. Second, the two alternative approaches to FVA require
expertise that may not be available to all communities. The 0.2 Percent
Flood is not mapped in all communities and requires a significant
degree of expertise to map over an area or for an individual site. The
same is also true for the CISA standard, which requires not just
historical analysis but a greater anticipation of trends and future
conditions. Third, HUD determined that it is not practicable to
establish the CISA or the 0.2 Percent Flood for all projects. HUD funds
or assists tens of thousands of small projects each year. For example,
repaving a road or rehabilitating a single family home may not
necessitate the extra amounts of cost required by the CISA and 0.2
Percent Flood approaches. Fourth, many states and communities already
have success applying a freeboard approach to floodplains. Due to the
familiarity that many communities have with freeboard, the FVA was seen
as a very practical approach with documented history of application.
In addition, HUD, as part of MitFLG working group, considered
varying levels of elevation above base flood elevation, specifically 1,
2 and 3 feet above BFE. Based on expected sea level rise and the cost
of elevation, HUD is providing the standard recommended by MitFLG,
which requires at least 2 feet above freeboard, or for critical
actions, at least 3 feet above freeboard.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The standards provided under this
rule, requiring at least two feet of freeboard above base flood
elevation, will increase the construction cost HUD's assisted and
insured new construction and substantially improved properties located
in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. This rule amends HUD's
current standard which requires elevation to at least the base flood
elevation. Thus, the elevation standards are not new, but rather
revised to an increased height. In addition, 20 states, plus the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already require elevation
exceeding HUD's current standard of elevation to the base flood level
(BFE+1). Further, four states--Indiana, Montana, New York and
Wisconsin--already require residential structures elevated with a
minimum of at least two of freeboard (BFE+2). Thus, the cost of
compliance in these states would be less than those that have no
minimum elevation requirements in the floodplain.
Developers receiving HUD assistance who are not currently building
to the proposed standard of 2 feet above base flood elevation (BFE+2)
can meet the proposed standards by either elevating the lowest floor of
the structure or by floodproofing to the new standard and limiting the
first floor to non-residential uses. Alternatively, developers could
choose to locate outside of the floodplain and the affected horizontal
expansion, or reduce substantial improvement projects to less than 50
percent of the market or pre-disaster value of the structure, which
would no longer classify the project as ``substantial''.
The standards to be provide in this rule are intended to protect
HUD-assisted and insured structures and the owners and tenants in these
units. Thus, the benefits of the rule include reduced building damage
and decreased costs to tenants temporarily displaced due to flooding,
including avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and
lost wages. The annual reduction in insurance premiums provides an
adequate measure of the reduction in expected damages, assuming that
the NFIP rates are calculated in order to maintain a non-negative
balance. In this case, the premiums for catastrophic insurance would be
slightly higher than, but similar to, the expected value of the claim
to pay for administrative costs.
HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
Risks: While the rule addresses a rule, the rule poses no risk to
public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR CITE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/28/ 81 FR 74967
2016
Final............................... 12/00/
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
Federalism Affected: No.
Energy Affected: Yes.
International Impacts: No.
Agency Contact: Danielle Schopp, Director, Office of Environment
and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: (202) 708-1201.
RIN: 2501-AD62
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)
Proposed Rule Stage
70. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Property
Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FR-5717)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 3001, et seq., E.O.
11990; E.O. 11988
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 50; 24 CFR 55.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: As communities begin to recover from the devastating
effects of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to
recognize lessons learned to employ mitigation actions that ensure that
structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer,
and less vulnerable to future flooding events. This commitment to
resiliency is now required of all agencies that use federal funds for
construction under Executive Order 13690 (Establishing a Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard) and the associated ``Guidelines for
Implementing Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and
Executive Order 13690.''
Based on Executive Order 13690 and the Guidelines, this proposed
rule would require, as part of the decisionmaking process established
to ensure compliance with Executive
[[Page 94577]]
Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) that new construction or
substantial improvement in a floodplain be elevated or floodproofed 2
feet above the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and 3 feet
above the base flood elevation for critical actions based on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's best available data. This rule
also proposes to revise a categorical exclusion available when HUD
performs the environmental review by making it consistent with changes
to a similar categorical exclusion that is available to HUD grantees or
other responsible entities when they perform the environmental review.
The rule is also part of HUD's commitment under the President's Climate
Action plan.
Statement of Need: This rule revises HUD's floodplain management
regulations in response to Executive Order 13690 and recommendations of
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). Executive Order
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input,
called for a new floodplain standard established with stakeholder
input. In addition to addressing risks identified by MitFLG associated
with the predicted sea level rise, the standards presented in this rule
also address a market failure of information regarding flood risk and
moral hazard associated with flood insurance and federal disaster
assistance. HUD is promulgating these new standards, which it must do
through rulemaking, in order to protect HUD's investments and ensure
uninterrupted provision of affordable housing.
Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 13690 directed Federal
agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated
with floodplain development. Based on evidence from the National
Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
MitFLG, consisting of representatives from various federal agencies,
proposed the establishment of the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard (FFRMS). These standards, at least two feet of freeboard above
base flood elevation for non-critical actions and three feet of
freeboard for critical actions, address the Executive Order's directive
of reducing adverse impact development in floodplains which, as many
studies indicate, are expanding fairly rapidly. The explicit standards
provided in this rule are needed because developers, homeowners and
renters do not fully internalize the risk and costs of potential
flooding. There is evidence that many homeowners are either not fully
aware of the risk of a flood occurring or that they discount the cost
of a flood if it occurs. In some cases, owners simply underestimate the
risk of flooding.
Alternatives: In developing new floodplain management standards,
HUD considered several alternative approaches to establishing the
standard: Climate-informed science approach (CISA); freeboard value
approach (FVA); and the 0.2 percent annual chance flood approach
(0.2PFA). HUD chose the FVA over the CISA and 0.2PFA for a variety of
reasons. First, the FVA can be applied consistently to any area
participating in the NFIP. The FVA can be calculated using existing
flood maps. This is not true for the CISA standard unless HUD were to
establish criteria for every community regarding the application of
particular climate and greenhouse gas scenarios and associated impacts.
Rather than requiring this level of review and analysis, HUD chose the
more direct FVA. Second, the two alternative approaches to FVA require
expertise that may not be available to all communities. The 0.2 Percent
Flood is not mapped in all communities and requires a significant
degree of expertise to map over an area or for an individual site. The
same is also true for the CISA standard, which requires not just
historical analysis but a greater anticipation of trends and future
conditions. Third, HUD determined that it is not practicable to
establish the CISA or the 0.2 Percent Flood for all projects. HUD funds
or assists tens of thousands of small projects each year. For example,
repaving a road or rehabilitating a single family home may not
necessitate the extra amounts of cost required by the CISA and 0.2
Percent Flood approaches. Fourth, many states and communities already
have success applying a freeboard approach to floodplains. Due to the
familiarity that many communities have with freeboard, the FVA was seen
as a very practical approach with documented history of application.
In addition, HUD, as part of MitFLG working group, considered
varying levels of elevation above base flood elevation, specifically 1,
2 and 3 feet above BFE. Based on expected sea level rise and the cost
of elevation, HUD is providing the standard recommended by MitFLG,
which requires at least 2 feet above freeboard, or for critical
actions, at least 3 feet above freeboard.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The standards provided under this
rule, requiring at least two feet of freeboard above base flood
elevation, will increase the construction cost HUD's assisted and
insured new construction and substantially improved properties located
in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. This rule amends HUD's
current standard which requires elevation to at least the base flood
elevation. Thus, the elevation standards are not new, but rather
revised to an increased height. In addition, 20 states, plus the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already require elevation
exceeding HUD's current standard of elevation to the base flood level
(BFE+0). Further, four states--Indiana, Montana, New York and
Wisconsin--already require residential structures elevated with a
minimum of at least two of freeboard (BFE+2). Thus, the cost of
compliance in these states would be less than those that have no
minimum elevation requirements in the floodplain.
Developers receiving HUD assistance who are not currently building
to the proposed standard of 2 feet above base flood elevation (BFE+2)
can meet the proposed standards by either elevating the lowest floor of
the structure or by floodproofing to the new standard and limiting the
first floor to non-residential uses. Alternatively, developers could
choose to locate outside of the floodplain and the affected horizontal
expansion, or reduce substantial improvement projects to less than 50
percent of the market or pre-disaster value of the structure, which
would no longer classify the project as substantial.
The standards to be provide in this rule are intended to protect
HUD-assisted and insured structures and the owners and tenants in these
units. Thus, the benefits of the rule include reduced building damage
and decreased costs to tenants temporarily displaced due to flooding,
including avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and
lost wages. The annual reduction in insurance premiums provides an
adequate measure of the reduction in expected damages, assuming that
the NFIP rates are calculated in order to maintain a non-negative
balance. In this case, the premiums for catastrophic insurance would be
slightly higher than, but similar to, the expected value of the claim
to pay for administrative costs.
HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
Risks: While the rule addresses a rule, the rule poses no risk to
public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94578]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Danielle Schopp, Director, Office of Environment
and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-1201.
RIN: 2501-AD62
HUD--HUDSEC
Final Rule Stage
71. Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards
in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal
Assistance; Response To Elevated Blood Lead Level (FR-5816)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 4821; 42 U.S.C. 4851
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 35.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend HUD's lead-based paint
regulations on reducing blood-lead levels in children under age 6 who
reside in federally-owned or assisted housing constructed prior to
1978. Specifically, the rule would formally adopt the revised
definition of elevated blood lead levels in children under the age of 6
based on the definition issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). The rule would also establish more comprehensive
testing and evaluation procedures for the housing where such children
reside. In 2012, the CDC issued guidance revising its definition of
elevated blood lead level in children under age 6 to be a blood lead
level based on the distribution of blood lead levels in the national
population. Since CDC revised its definition, HUD has applied it to
funds awarded under its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant program
and its Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program, and has
updated its Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Housing to reflect this definition. Through this rule,
HUD formally adopts in regulation the CDC's definition on elevated
blood lead levels in children under the age of 6 and addresses the
additional elements of the CDC guidance pertaining to assisted housing.
Statement of Need: Although HUD is already applying the CDC's 2012
revised definition of elevated blood level in its lead hazard control
notices of funding availability and in HUD guidelines, HUD's Lead Safe
Housing rule has not yet been updated to reflect the CDC's revised
definition of elevated blood lead levels, and to mandate adherence to
this definition by owners and managers of federally-owned or -assisted
pre-1978 housing requires rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis: Codified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 35, HUD's Lead-Based Paint regulation, commonly
referred to as the Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR), is designed to reduce
lead exposure in federally-owned and federally-assisted housing (or
assisted housing). The LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which is
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public
Law 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4822.
Under Title X, HUD has specific authority to control lead-based paint
and lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted target housing. The LSHR
aims in part to ensure that federally-owned or federally-assisted
housing that may have lead-based paint--most housing constructed prior
to 1978, called target housing does not have lead-based paint hazards.
Lead-based paint hazards are lead-based paint and all residential lead-
containing dusts and soils, regardless of the source of the lead,
which, due to their condition and location, would result in adverse
human health effects. As reflected in the LSHR, and consistent with
Title X, HUD's primary focus is on minimizing childhood lead exposures,
rather than on waiting until children have elevated blood lead levels
to undertake actions to eliminate the lead-based paint hazards. This
rule continues HUD's efforts to spearhead major efforts in lead
poisoning prevention by taking all actions feasible and authorized by
law to reduce lead exposure in children.
Alternatives: Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act), prescribes specific lead-based paint
hazard evaluation and reduction activities for federally-supported
housing. To mandate compliance with revised elevated blood lead levels
procedures requires rulemaking. While HUD issued updated guidelines in
2012 to encourage compliance with CDC's revised guidelines on elevated
blood lead levels, it takes rulemaking to require compliance with CDC's
revised definition of elevated blood lead levels in federally-supported
housing.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits associated
with the units affected during the first year of hazard evaluation and
reduction activities under the final rule include the present value of
future benefits associated with first year hazard reduction activities.
For example, the benefits from costs expended for first year activities
include the present value of lifetime earnings benefits for children
living in the affected unit during the first year, whether that child
continues living in that unit during the second and subsequent years
after hazard reduction activities does not affect the benefit
calculation, because the lowered lead exposure benefits all children
under age 6 who reside there during the effective period of the hazard
control measures (as noted above, typically 6 or 12 or more years). The
costs of ongoing lead-based paint maintenance in units covered by this
rulemaking are not considered in this analysis, because it is already
required by the original Lead Safe Housing Rule for housing covered by
this rulemaking.
Although many benefits of lead-based pain hazard reduction cannot
be quantified or monetized, such as quality of life considerations such
as adolescents' and adults' dissatisfaction with lower intelligence,
fewer skills, reduced education and job potential, criminal behavior,
unwed pregnancies, etc., HUD does not address monetized estimates of
the cognitive benefits of preventing children under age 6 from
developing elevated blood lead levels. Such benefits include avoiding
the costs of medical treatment for children with elevated blood lead
levels as well as increasing lifetime earnings associated with higher
IQs for children with lower blood lead levels. In addition, blood lead
levels of older children and adults living in the affected housing
units would be expected to fall as a result of this rulemaking,
although quantifying their blood lead changes is outside the scope of
analysis for this rulemaking. Thus, the estimates of benefits represent
a lower bound on the economic benefits of LBP hazard reduction because
there are many other health impacts for both adults and children from
lead exposure that are not quantified or monetized here. The analysis
of net benefits reflects benefits over time associated with the costs
incurred in the first year of hazard evaluation and reduction
activities under the final rule. For example, the benefits of costs
incurred in first year activities include the present value of lifetime
earnings benefits for children living in the affected unit during that
first year, and
[[Page 94579]]
for children living in that unit during the second and subsequent years
after hazard reduction activities.
HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
Risks: While this rule addresses a public health issue, but poses
no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/01/16 81 FR 60304
Comment Due Deadline................ 10/31/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Warren Friedman, Office of Lean Hazard Control and
Healthy Homes, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202
402-7698, TDD Phone: 800 877-8339, Fax: 202 708-0014, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2501-AD77
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (Interior) is the principal Federal
steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of
our cultural treasures. Interior serves as trustee to American Indians'
and Alaska Natives' trust assets and is responsible for relations with
the island territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department
of the Interior manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands,
including 412 park units and 563 wildlife refuges, and more than a
billion submerged offshore acres. On public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), Interior provides access for renewable and
conventional energy development and manages the protection and
restoration of surface-mined lands.
Interior 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.
Interior 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. Interior will emphasize
regulations and policies that:
Promote environmentally responsible, safe, and balanced
development of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands
and the 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
Interior'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 Conservation Lands, and American Indian trust lands;
Managing public lands open to multiple use;
Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal
minerals;
Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to
American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
Managing natural resource damage assessments.
Regulatory Policy
Interior'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.
Interior's mission includes protecting and providing access to our
Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust
responsibilities to Indian 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, Interior 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. Interior 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, Interior
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.
Interior strongly encourages public participation in the regulatory
process and will continue to actively engage the public in the
implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout Interior, individual
bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people have an
active role in managing our Nation's public lands and resources.
[[Page 94580]]
For example, every year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with Flyway
Councils composed of state fish and wildlife agencies. The FWS also
holds a series of public meetings to provide interested parties,
including hunters and other groups, opportunities to participate in
establishing the upcoming season's regulations. Similarly, the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) uses Resource Advisory Councils to provide
advice on the 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.'' Interior'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.
Interior routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit feedback and
input on ways to modernize our regulatory programs, through efforts
such as incorporating performance based standards and removing outdated
and unnecessary requirements. Interior bureaus continue efforts to make
our regulations easier to comply with and understand. Our regulatory
process ensures that bureaus share ideas 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 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 of the Interior's Final Plan for Retrospective
Review and biannual status reports can be viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/regsreview.
Bureaus and Offices Within the Department of the Interior
The following sections give an overview of some of the major
regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
Indian Affairs
Indian Affairs, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), provides services to
approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, and
maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 567
federally recognized tribes. Indian Affairs 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 American
Indians and tribes. Indian Affair's mission is to enhance the quality
of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect and improve the
trust assets of Indian tribes, American Indians, 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 and businesses. In addition, Indian
Affairs 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, Indian Affairs regulatory priorities are to:
Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian
education.
Indian Affairs is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of
Indian Education to follow adequate yearly progress standards for 23
different states. The review will determine whether a uniform standard
would better meet the needs of students at BIE-funded schools. With
regard to undergraduate education, the BIE plans to finalize
regulations that address grants to tribally controlled community
colleges and other Indian education regulations. These reviews identify
provisions that need to be updated to comply with applicable statutes
and ensure that the proper regulatory framework is in place to support
students in BIE-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 BIA
is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete provisions. In
the past year, the BIA has finalized 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). In the
coming year, the BIA also plans to finalize revisions to regulations
regarding the Tribal Transportation Program (formerly known as Indian
Reservation Roads) (25 CFR 170).
Solicit comment on potential regulatory changes to Indian
trader regulations.
BIA is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that
would comprehensively update 25 CFR part 140 (Licensed Indian Traders)
in an effort to modernize the implementation of the Indian Trader
statutes consistent with the Federal policies of tribal self-
determination and self-governance. The current regulations were
promulgated in 1957 and have not been comprehensively updated since
1965. BIA will solicit comments on its Indian Trader regulations
including how the regulations could be improved, who should be
permitted to trade on Indian land, and what may be traded on Indian
land, in a manner more consistent with tribal self-governance and self-
determination.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management 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 or 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
[[Page 94581]]
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.
The BLM is updating and improving the current versions of Onshore
Oil and Gas Orders (Orders) 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
(GAO), the Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General,
and the Department of the Interior's Subcommittee on Royalty
Management. The proposed changes address findings and recommendations
that in part formed the basis for the GAO's inclusion of Interior'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 3 decades old. The agency
intends to finalize a 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.
Ensuring 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 GAO recommended that BLM take necessary steps to revise its
regulations regarding 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 during the comment
period ending 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.
With respect to royalties rates generally, based on comments
received on the ANPRM, the BLM proposed an amendment to its regulations
governing royalty rates as part of its ``Waste Prevention, Production
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' rulemaking, 81 FR
6616 (Feb. 8, 2016). The proposed regulatory amendment, if adopted,
would give the Secretary flexibility to adjust onshore oil and gas
royalty rates in response to market conditions.
Regarding financial measures to address risks, on June 28, 2016,
the BLM published a rule to adjust civil monetary penalties contained
in the Bureau of Land Management's regulations governing onshore oil
and gas operations. This rule responded to the requirements of the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015. The adjustments made by this interim final rule constitute the
initial catch-up adjustments contemplated by the Act, and are
consistent with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
guidance. The initial adjustments will be followed by annual
adjustments for inflation thereafter. The purpose of these adjustments
is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties found in
existing regulations.
Creating a competitive process for offering lands for
solar and wind energy development.
The BLM will finalize a rule to 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
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 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.
BOEM is finalizing two rules to address this goal. In consultation
with stakeholders, a proposed rule would update, simplify, and clarify
BOEM's current regulations for awarding renewable energy leases and
grants. It would reorganize, simplify, and clarify BOEM's pre- and
post-auction procedures and better describe the use of bidding credits.
It also would deter bidder collusion and provide incentives to
encourage a provisional winner to fulfill its obligations. The second
is a final rule that reassigns current safety and environmental
oversight and enforcement responsibilities for off-shore renewable
energy projects from BOEM to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement. The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary
for Land and Mineral Management mandated this administrative
reassignment to ensure that safety and environmental oversight of
offshore renewable energy activities is independent of program
management and leasing functions. BOEM is proposing to amend the scope
of an existing proposed rulemaking that remains in early development.
The amended scope will incorporate changes to the offshore renewable
regulatory framework suggested by the public and the regulated
community and may include provisions addressing regulatory gaps and
inconsistencies arising from the Title 30 reorganization.
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,
Interior exercised jurisdiction only for OCS sources operating in the
Gulf of Mexico. In Fiscal Year 2011, Congress expanded Interior's
authority by transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air
quality off the North Slope Borough of
[[Page 94582]]
the State of Alaska, including the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea.
BOEM intends to finalize updated regulations to reflect changes that
have occurred over the past 34 years and the new regulatory
jurisdiction.
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 (ANPRM) in 2014, and has
engaged with industry on the subject. BOEM has since issued a Notice to
Lessees to its stakeholders, effective September 12, 2016, to address
the concerns.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 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 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.
Updating Cost Reporting and Cost Recovery Rules
BSEE expects to finalize its proposal for expanding the existing
requirements for reporting of actual decommissioning costs to include
the costs of decommissioning pipelines subject to BSEE's authority. The
Bureau will use that information to estimate future decommissioning
costs. BSEE will also propose, and expects to finalize, updates to the
existing regulations for recovery of the costs of services provided by
BSEE (such as reviewing permit applications) to reflect increases in
those costs.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
The 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 for October 2016 through March 2017 includes
proposing new regulations to implement the provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) governing the payment of advance royalty on
coal resources produced from Federal leases. 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. Additionally, ONRR expects to issue a
proposed rulemaking to amend ONRR's service of official correspondence
regulations, providing necessary clarifications and a simpler process
for the service of official correspondence.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSMRE 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 OSMRE 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, OSMRE 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.
OSMRE'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 OSMRE 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. OSMRE'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. OSMRE 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.
Cost Recovery.
Revise OSMRE existing permit fees and impose new fees to recover
OSMRE's costs for permit administration and enforcement services
provided to the coal industry. The proposed fees would be applicable to
permits for mining on lands where regulatory jurisdiction has not been
delegated to the States and would include OSMRE's Federal program,
States, and Indian lands.
Bond Requirements.
[[Page 94583]]
Update OSMRE bonding regulations to ensure there are sufficient
funds to complete all of the required reclamation in the reclamation
plan if the regulatory authority has to perform the work in the event
of forfeiture.
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 under the ESA to conserve both
domestic and foreign animal and plant species. Accordingly, we will add
species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designate critical
habitat for certain listed species. We will issue a comprehensive
compensatory mitigation policy that sets standards for compensatory
mitigation and minimum criteria that should provide better ecological
outcomes for listed and at-risk species through effective management of
the risks associated with compensatory mitigation. The policy will
encourage a proactive approach that will take advantage of economies of
scale and provide greater regulatory certainty and predictability for
the regulated community.
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.
Additionally, FWS is considering whether to issue a proposed rulemaking
to address various approaches to regulating incidental take of
migratory birds, including issuing individual permits, general permits,
and Federal agency authorizations. 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.
The FWS is also refining its management objectives for bald eagles
and golden eagles and revising the regulations pertaining to issuing
permits for nonpurposeful take of eagles and eagle nest take. The
revisions will add clarity to the eagle permit regulations, improve
their implementation, and increase compliance, while providing strong
protection for eagles.
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 protect NWRS resources, we will issue a 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 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Acts (Acts).
Under the Acts, the FWS distributes annual apportionments to States
from trust funds derived from excise tax revenues and fuel taxes. We
continue to direct state fish and wildlife agencies on how to use these
funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen our partnership
with State conservation organizations, we are working on several rules
to update and clarify our regulations. Planned regulatory revisions
will help to reflect several new decisions agreed upon by state
conservation organizations, we are working on several rules to update
and clarify our regulations. Planned regulatory revision will help to
reflect several new decisions agreed upon by State and Federal
partners. We will also expand on existing regulations that prescribe
processes that applicants and grantees must follow when applying for
and managing grants from FWS.
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.
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 decisionmaking
process.
Effective Management: Instilling a performance management
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires
accountability at all levels.
[[Page 94584]]
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, and Cape Lookout National Seashore 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 Disposition of Archeological Materials.
The rule will establish definitions, standards, procedures, and
guidelines to be followed by Federal agencies to dispose of particular
archeological material remains that are in collections recovered during
Federal projects and programs under certain Federal statutes. This rule
is necessary because, at present, there is no procedure to dispose of
material remains that are determined to be of insufficient
archeological interest.
Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
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 Lands.
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 Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1211 et seq.) and the Department of Justice Service
Animal regulations of 2011 (28 CFR 36.104).
Managing Subsistence Collection--NPS Units--Alaska Region.
The rule will allow qualified subsistence users to collect and use
non-edible fish and wildlife parts and plant materials for the creation
and subsequent disposition (use, barter, or sale) of handicrafts. The
rule will also (1) clarify that collecting or possessing living
wildlife is generally prohibited, and (2) limit the types of bait that
may be used to take bears for subsistence uses.
Managing Sale and Distribution of Printed Matter and Other
Message Bearing Items--NPS Units Nationwide.
The rule would allow the free distribution of message-bearing items
that do not meet the definition of ``printed matter'' in existing
regulations. These items include readable electronic media, clothing
and accessories, buttons, pins, and bumper stickers. The rule would
implement current NPS policy.
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 2017 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 2016
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
The Department is planning to publish a rule amending the
Department's section 504 regulations for federally assisted programs
and activities to incorporate changes adopted by the ADA Amendments Act
of 2008 and other legal developments (RIN 1105-AB50). In addition, the
Civil Rights Division is including the following disability
nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives in the Department's Regulatory
Plan: (1) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public
Accommodations: Movie Captioning and Audio Description (RIN 1190-AA63);
(2) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local
Governments (RIN 1190-AA65); and (3) Implementation of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504 Federal
Coordination regulation (RIN 1190-AA72).
[[Page 94585]]
The Civil Rights Division will also be revising its regulations for
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted
Programs under title VI of the Civil Rights Act (RIN 1190-AA70), as
well as revising regulations implementing section 274B of the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to unfair immigration-
related employment practices (RIN 1190-AA71).
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) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services (RIN 1190-AA62); (2)
Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations
(RIN 1190-AA61); (3) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture (RIN
1190-AA64), including Accessibility of Medical Equipment and Furniture
(RIN 1190-AA66), and Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility
Features in Places of Lodging (RIN 1190-AA67); and (4) Implementation
of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504
regulation with respect to federally conducted programs and activities
(RIN 1190-AA73).
Regulatory Plan Initiatives
Captioning and Audio Description in Movie Theaters (RIN 1190-AA63).
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 theaters are not required . .
. to present open-captioned films,'' 28 CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but
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 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 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 (RIN 1190-
AA65). 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 lives of Americans.
The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination mandate reaches public entities'
programs, services, or activities offered on or through their 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
[[Page 94586]]
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.
On May 9, 2016 the Department published a Supplemental Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM) titled Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of
State and Local Government Entities addressing the potential
application of technical accessibility requirements to the Web sites of
title II entities. 81 FR 28657. Through the SANPRM, the Department
intends to solicit additional public comment on various issues to help
the Department shape and further its rulemaking efforts. The SANPRM
asks 123 multipart questions, seeking public comment on a wide range of
complex issues related to the potential technical accessibility
requirements as well as any proposed title II web rule's costs and
benefits.
Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federally
Assisted Programs (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN
1105-AB50). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
(29 U.S.C. 794), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance or in
programs and activities conducted by an Executive agency. This rule
would propose to revise the Department's regulation implementing
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with respect to recipients of
Federal financial assistance from the Department, 28 CFR part 42,
subpart G, to reflect statutory amendments made by the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25, 2008), and
other legal developments since the current regulations were adopted.
The ADA Amendments Act, which took effect on January 1, 2009,
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. Specifically, these
amended ADA requirements: (1) Clarify that the term ``disability''
shall be interpreted broadly and without extensive analysis; (2) add
rules of construction to be applied when determining whether an
impairment substantially limits a major life activity; (3) expand the
definition of ``major life activities'' by providing a non-exhaustive
list of ``major life activities'' that includes the operation of
``major bodily functions;'' and (4) modify the ``regarded as'' prong of
the definition of disability by stating that an individual may be
``regarded as'' having an impairment even if that impairment does not
limit or is not perceived to limit a major life activity, and
clarifying that individuals covered only under the ``regarded as''
prong are not entitled to reasonable modifications. An update to 28 CFR
part 42, subpart G, would, therefore, incorporate these changes and
harmonize the regulation with the ADA Amendments Act and the revisions
to title V of the Rehabilitation Act.
Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federal
Coordination (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN 1190-
AA72). Executive Order 12250 delegated the authority to coordinate the
enforcement and implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
by Executive agencies to the Attorney General. Pursuant to this
authority, the Department proposes to revise its regulation
implementing Executive Order 12250, 28 CFR part 41, to reflect
statutory amendments to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act made by
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The proposed revisions to the
Department's Federal Coordination regulation would be consistent with
the proposed revisions to the Department's Federally Assisted
regulation discussed above.
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs (RIN 1190-AA70). 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.
Implementation of Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (RIN 1190-AA71). 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.
Long-Term Actions
The remaining disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives
from the 2010 ANPRMs are included in the Department's long-term
priorities projected for fiscal years 2017 and 2018:
Next Generation 9-1-1 (RIN 1190-AA62). 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.
Web Site Accessibility: Public Accommodations (RIN 1190-AA61). 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
[[Page 94587]]
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, 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 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 in fiscal year 2017. 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.
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 an NPRM pursuant to title III of the ADA on beds in
accessible guest rooms (RIN 1190-AA67), and also a separate NPRM
pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA that focuses solely on
accessible medical equipment and furniture (RIN 1190-AA66). The
remaining items of equipment and furniture addressed in the 2010 ANPRM
will be the subject of a subsequent NPRM.
Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federally
Conducted Programs (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN
1190-AA73). As noted above, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), prohibits discrimination on the basis
of disability in programs and activities conducted by an Executive
agency. The Department plans to revise its 504 federally conducted
regulation at 28 CFR part 39 to update outdated terminology and reflect
statutory amendments to the definition of disability applicable to
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as made by the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25, 2008).
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. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year
2017, 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) (RIN 1140-AA00). The Department is also
planning to finalize a proposed rule to codify 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 (RIN 1140-AA38). As proposed, this rule
would clarify the administrative hearing processes for explosives
licenses and permits.
ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR part 447
to update the terminology in the ATF regulations based on similar
terminology amendments made by the Department of State on the U.S.
Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and
the Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List in the Export
Administration Regulations (RIN 1140-AA49).
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
[[Page 94588]]
reviews and initiatives, DEA plans to update its regulations for the
import and export of tableting and 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 published an NPRM
proposing to amend these regulations and plans to finalize these
proposals promptly (RIN 1117-AB41).
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 (RIN 1120-
AB71); improve safety in facilities through the use of less-than-lethal
force instead of traditional weapons (RIN 1120-AB67); and provide
effective literacy programming which serves both general and
specialized inmate needs (RIN 1120-AB64).
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 final 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 (1125-AA68); a final regulation to
improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR (RIN
1125-AA72); 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 (RIN 1125-AA70). 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-2003 immigration system (RIN 1125-AA71).
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1125-AA62............................. List of Pro Bono Legal Service The Department has published a Final
Providers for Aliens in rule amending the EOIR regulations to
Immigration Proceedings. enhance the eligibility requirements
for organizations, private attorneys,
and referral services to be included on
the List of Pro Bono Legal Service
Providers.
1125-AA71............................. Retrospective Regulatory Advance notice of future rulemaking
Review Under E.O. 13563 of 8 concerning appeals of DHS decisions (8
CFR parts 1003, 1103, 1211, CFR part 1103), documentary
1212, 1215, 1216, 1235. requirements for 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.
[[Page 94589]]
1125-AA72............................. Recognition of Organizations This rule amends the regulations
and Accreditations of governing the requirements and
Non[hyphen] Attorney procedures for 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 Representation for The Department has published a Final
Custody and Bond Proceedings. rule amending the 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 Dispense DEA proposes to amend its regulations to
Controlled Substances on an clearly delineate how to transport,
As-Needed and Random Basis. dispense, and store 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 the DEA plans to update its regulations for
International Trade Data the import and export 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 Officers' These two related rules are a priority
Benefits (PSOB) Program. because certain key 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 proposes to 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
proposes 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 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.
[[Page 94590]]
DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)
Proposed Rule Stage
72. 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:
[[Page 94591]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/21/11 .......................
Supplemental ANPRM.................. 05/09/16 81 FR 28657
Supplemental ANPRM Comment Period 07/29/16 81 FR 49908
Extended.
Supplemental ANPRM Comment Period 08/08/16 .......................
End.
Supplemental ANPRM Extended Comment 10/07/16 .......................
Period End.
NPRM................................ 07/00/17 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Additional Information: Split from RIN 1190-AA61.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA65
DOJ--CRT
Final Rule Stage
73. 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 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
[[Page 94592]]
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA63
DOJ--CRT
74. 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................................ 08/15/16 81 FR 53965
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/14/16
Final Action........................ 09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Avenue NW.,
Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 616-5594, Fax: 202 616-
5509, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1190-AA71
DOJ--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)
Final 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
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
[[Page 94593]]
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................................ 07/28/16 81 FR 49556
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/26/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 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 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:
[[Page 94594]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/01/15 80 FR 59514
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/30/15 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
RIN: 1125-AA72
DOJ--LEGAL ACTIVITIES (LA)
Proposed Rule Stage
77. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Federally
Assisted Programs (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 72855); 11/
04/1980
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 42, subpart G.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is issuing this notice of
proposed rulemaking to revise its regulation implementing section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as applicable to programs and
activities receiving financial assistance from the Department, in order
to: (1) Incorporate amendments to the statute, including the changes in
the meaning and interpretation of the applicable definition of
disability required by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008; (2) incorporate
requirements stemming from judicial decisions; (3) update accessibility
standards applicable to new construction and alteration of buildings
and facilities; (4) update certain provisions to promote consistency
with comparable provisions implementing title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act; and (5) make other nonsubstantive clarifying edits,
including updating outdated terminology and references that currently
exist in 28 CFR part 42, such as changing the word handicapped and
similar variations of that word to language referencing individuals
with disabilities, modifying the order of the regulatory provisions to
group like provisions together, and adding some headings to make the
regulation more user-friendly.
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
for federally assisted programs 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), was published in the Federal Register on August 11,
2016. 81 FR 53203.
Because most 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 we do not believe that the revisions to
the Department's existing section 504 federally assisted regulations
will have a significant economic impact.
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.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1190-AA60.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
Michael Alston, Director, Office for Civil Rights, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 800 K Street NW., Room 2327,
(Techworld), Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 307-0692.
RIN: 1105-AB50
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Fall 2016 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Introduction
The Department's Fall 2016 Regulatory Agenda continues to advance
the Department's mission to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of
wage earners, job seekers, and retirees; improve working conditions;
advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-
related benefits and rights. These rules will provide greater
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 veterans to thrive in
the civilian economy, for workers to retire with dignity, for workers
and employers to compete on a level playing field, and for people to
work in a safe environment with the full protection of our anti-
discrimination laws.
Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department of
Labor has completed historic rulemakings on issues that are central to
America's workers and their families: Worker safety, wages, and
retirement security.
We finalized regulations to limit worker exposure to deadly silica
dust that can lead to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and kidney disease, providing important new
protections to 2.3 million workers
[[Page 94595]]
and preventing hundreds of deaths each year.
We finalized updates to our overtime regulations to ensure that
middle class jobs pay middle class wages, extending important overtime
pay protections to over 4.2 million workers and raising their pay by an
estimated $12 billion in the next 10 years.
We issued final regulations that will enable employees of Federal
contractors to earn seven days of paid sick and safe leave per year,
for the first time guaranteeing these workers have paid leave to care
for themselves, family members, or loved ones, without fear of losing
their paychecks or their jobs.
We finalized our Conflict of Interest Rule, establishing a
fundamental principle of consumer protection in the American retirement
marketplace--that retirement advisors must put their clients' interests
before their own profits.
Along with the Department of Education, we finalized regulations to
implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act--the most
significant legislative reform to the public workforce system in nearly
20 years--that will expand workers' opportunities to develop the skills
they need and provide employers with the skilled workforce they need to
succeed in the 21st century economy.
We finalized new regulations that establish equity and transparency
in employer/consultant reporting requirements when employers engage
consultants to persuade employees on their rights to organize and
bargain collectively.
Working with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, we
finalized regulations and guidance implementing 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. The rule ensures that taxpayer dollars do not
reward companies that break the law and that contractors who meet their
legal responsibilities do not have to compete with those who do not.
We updated sex discrimination regulations for Federal contractors
for the first time in 40 years, to reflect the current state of the law
and the reality of a modern and diverse workforce. Updated rules on
workplace sex discrimination will mean clarity for Federal contractors
and subcontractors and equal opportunities for both men and women
applying for jobs with, or already working for, these employers.
We will update and simplify the equal opportunity regulations
implementing the National Apprenticeship Act to help employers and
other apprenticeship sponsors attract a larger and more diverse
applicant pool and provide greater opportunities to women, people of
color, and other individuals regardless of disability, age, sexual
orientation, or gender identity, to take part in Registered
Apprenticeship programs. And, we finalized regulations clarifying how
states can establish retirement savings arrangements to automatically
enroll employees, and offer coverage that is consistent with Federal
laws governing employee benefit plans.
The 2016 Regulatory Plan highlights the Labor Department's most
noteworthy and significant rulemaking efforts, with each addressing the
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 Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP),
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,
disability, national origin, veteran's status, 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, strong
foundation of evidence, and extensive stakeholder outreach, are
integral to all of our regulatory efforts. Successful rulemaking
requires that we build a big table and keep an open mind.
Training More Workers and Job-Seekers for 21st Century Jobs
The Department continues to implement the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), the first major reform to Federal job training
programs in almost 20 years, building new partnerships, engaging
employers, emphasizing proven strategies like apprenticeship and
preparing people for the demands of the 21st century economy. 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.
The Department's Civil Rights Center (CRC) will issue a
final rule to implement the nondiscrimination provisions in section 188
of WIOA. The rule will update nondiscrimination and equal opportunity
provisions to be consistent with current law and address its
application to current workforce development and workplace practices
and issues. 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.'' \2\ The current final rule ultimately will be
superseded by the final rule arising from the earlier NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal
Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2014 (RIN:
1291-A37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further meet the demands of the 21st century workforce, the
Department will also explore options to modernize and provide
flexibilities to employers and workers, without sacrificing important
worker protections in the permanent labor certification program.
The permanent labor certification requirements and process
have not been comprehensively examined or modified since 2004. ETA
proposes to consider options to modernize the PERM program to be more
responsive to changes in the national workforce in order to further
align the program design with the objectives of the U.S. Immigration
system, and needs of workers and employers, and to enhance the
integrity of the labor certification process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Modernizing the Permanent Labor Certification Program (PERM)
(RIN: 1205-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA also proposes to engage the public on whether the
Schedule A of the permanent labor certification process serves as an
effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how the
Department may create a timely, coherent, and transparent methodology
for identifying occupations that are experiencing labor shortages.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Labor Certification for Permanent Employment of Foreign
Workers in the United States; Revising Schedule A (RIN: 1205-AB77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 94596]]
Ensuring Access to Health Care, Retirement, and Workers' Compensation
Benefits
Workplace benefits ensure that workers have the opportunity to
remain in the middle class if they face a health and welfare challenge,
retire from their jobs, or experience a workplace accident or illness.
In addition, a financially secure retirement is a fundamental pillar of
the middle class. The Department has a regulatory program designed to
improve health benefits and retirement security for all workers.
EBSA plans to finalize regulations that describe how
political subdivisions (e.g. cities and counties) may design and
operate payroll deduction savings programs, using automatic enrollment,
for private-sector employees without causing the political subdivisions
or private-sector employers to establish employee pension benefit plans
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Savings Arrangements Established by Political Subdivisions
for Non-Governmental Employees (RIN: 1210-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA plans to finalize regulations that strengthen,
improve and update the current disability benefit claims and appeals
process under section 503 of ERISA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Amendment to Claims Procedure Regulation (RIN: 1210-AB39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA will also continue to issue guidance implementing the health
coverage provisions of Parts 6 and 7 of ERISA, including the provisions
of COBRA, HIPAA, GINA, mental health parity, the Newborns' and Mothers'
Health Protection Act, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, and
the Affordable Care Act group market protections. Much of this guidance
involves joint work 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 an NPRM under the Black Lung Benefits Act
to address how medical providers are reimbursed for covered services
rendered to coal miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis, 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, religion, disability, national origin,
veteran's status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The
Department continues to take a robust approach to implementing its
wage-and-hour and nondiscrimination regulations through education,
outreach and strategic enforcement across industries. The regulations
in this area 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 will propose revisions to its regulations implementing
section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to reflect the changes in
employment laws affecting workers with disabilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Employment of Workers with Disabilities under Special
Certificates (RIN: 1235-AA14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers
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. We reject the false choice
between worker safety and economic growth. Through our rulemakings, we
are committed to protecting workers in all kinds of workplaces,
including above- and below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal mines. 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. Our efforts are to prevent workers from having to choose
between their lives and their livelihood.
MSHA will build on the knowledge gained through the OSHA
silica rulemaking process to develop regulations that would provide
essential protections to miners from silica exposure in mines.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Respirable Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1219-AB36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is developing an NPRM that will look at how to
provide stronger protections for workers exposed to infectious diseases
in healthcare and other related high risk environments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Infectious Diseases (RIN: 1218-AC46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA will finalize regulations that address occupational
exposure to beryllium in the workplace.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (RIN: 1218-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon its history of addressing workplace violence
in health care facilities, OSHA will solicit information from health
care employers, workers and other experts on preventing workplace
violence in the workplace. The request for information will seek public
input on the impacts of violence, prevention strategies, and other
information that will be useful to OSHA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Preventing Violence in Healthcare (RIN: 1218-AD08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After more than 25 years, OSHA will update and finalize
regulations that address slip, trip and fall hazards and establish
requirements for personal fall protection systems. Slips, trips and
falls are among the leading causes or work-related injuries and
fatalities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection
Systems (Slips, Trips, and Fall Prevention) (RIN: 1218-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2016 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 14
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.
[[Page 94597]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is
expected to
significantly
Agency Regulatory Identifier No. Title of rulemaking reduce
(RIN) burdens on
small
businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA........................... 1210-AB47................. Amendment of Abandoned Plan Program. Yes.
EBSA........................... 1210-AB63................. 21st Century Initiative to Modernize To Be
the Form 5500 Series and Determined.
Implementing and Related
Regulations.
ETA............................ 1205-AB59................. Equal Employment Opportunity in To Be
Apprenticeship and Training, Determined.
Amendment of Regulations.
ETA............................ 1205-AB75................. Modernizing the Permanent Labor To Be
Certification Program (PERM). Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC34................. Bloodborne Pathogens................ To Be
Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC67................. Standard Improvement Project--Phase To Be
IV (SIP IV). Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC74................. Chemical Management and Permissible To Be
Exposure Limits (PELs). Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC81................. Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Yes.
Amendments.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC82................. Process Safety Management and To Be
Flammable Liquids. Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AD01................. Revocation of Obsolete PELs......... To Be
Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC99................. Powered Industrial Trucks........... To Be
Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AC98................. Mechanical Power Presses Update..... To Be
Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AD00................. Lock-Out/Tag-Out Update............. To Be
Determined.
OSHA........................... 1218-AD12................. Technical Correction to 16 OSHA To Be
Standards. Determined.
OWCP........................... 1240-AA11................. Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical To Be
Benefit Payments. Determined.
WHD............................ 1235-AA17................. Updating Regulations Issued Under To be
Various Wage and Hour Division Determined.
Statutes Consistent with Rosa's Law.
WHD............................ 1235-AA18................. Technical Updates to Regulations To Be
Issued Under Various Wage and Hour Determined.
Division Statutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)
Proposed Rule Stage
78. Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Special Certificates
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 214; Pub. L. 113-
128
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 525.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 14(c) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 214(c), provides
that the Secretary of Labor may, to the extent necessary to prevent the
curtailment of opportunities for employment, issue certificates to
permit the payment of subminimum wages to individuals with disabilities
whose earring or productive capacities are affected by their
disability. The Department is proposing to revise the regulations
implementing section 14(c) to reflect changes in employment laws
affecting workers with disabilities enacted since the Department's last
update to the regulations.
Statement of Need: For some time, WHD has been conducting a
comprehensive review of the section 14(c) program. This review was
designed to develop strategies to better protect workers in the
program, to promote WHD's vision of supporting competitive and
integrated employment of individuals with disabilities, and to assist
with efforts to make section 14(c) employment an option of last resort
for workers where feasible. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) created a new section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, which
imposes certain new conditions on the payment of subminimum wages by
section 14(c) certificate holders. The current section 14(c)
regulations are in need of improvement. The regulations have not been
updated since 1989 and lack comprehensive, detailed information
regarding the issuance, renewal, and revocation of 14(c) certificates
as well as WHD's enforcement of the program. The regulations will be
updated as the Department considers the new requirements of WIOA, and
suggestions from workers with disabilities and their advocates.
Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by section
14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 214.
Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be
invited to provide comments on the proposed revisions and possible
alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department will prepare
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the
proposed rule.
Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room S3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA14
DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)
Final Rule Stage
79. Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of
Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1, 50 stat 664, as amended (29 U.S.C. 50; 40
U.S.C. 276c; 5 U.S.C. 301); Reorganization Plan No 14 of 1950, 64 stat
1267 (5 U.S.C. app p 534)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 30 (revision).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Revisions to the equal opportunity regulatory framework
for the National Apprenticeship Act are a critical element in the
Department's vision to promote and expand Registered Apprenticeship
opportunities in the 21st century while continuing to safeguard the
welfare and safety of apprentices. In October 2008, the Agency issued a
Final Rule updating regulations for Apprenticeship Programs and Labor
Standards for Registration. These regulations, codified at title 29 CFR
29, have not been updated since 1977. The companion regulations, 29 CFR
30, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship and Training,
[[Page 94598]]
have not been amended since 1978. The Agency proposes to update 29 CFR
30 to ensure that the National Registered Apprenticeship System is
consistent and in alignment with EEO law, as it has developed since
1978, and recent revisions to 29 CFR 29. This second phase of
regulatory updates ensures that Registered Apprenticeship is positioned
to continue to provide economic opportunity for millions of Americans
while keeping pace with these new requirements.
Statement of Need: Federal regulations for Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship have not been updated since 1978.
Updates to these regulations are necessary to ensure that DOL
regulatory requirements governing the National Registered
Apprenticeship System are consistent with the current state of EEO law
and recent revisions to 29 CFR 29.
Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by the
National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Copeland Act
(40 U.S.C. 276(c). These regulations will set forth policies and
procedures to promote equality of opportunity in apprenticeship
programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or in State
Apprenticeship Agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Alternatives: The public was afforded an opportunity to provide
comments on the proposed amendment to Apprenticeship EEO regulations
when the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in
the Federal Register. A Final Rule was issued after analysis and
incorporation of public comments to the NRPM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes are thought to
raise ``novel legal or policy issues'' but are not economically
significant within the context of Executive Order 12866 and are not a
``major rule'' under section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act.
Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or
the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/06/15 80 FR 68908
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/05/16 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/24/15 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 01/20/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: John V. Ladd, Office of Apprenticeship, Department
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, FP Building, Room C-
5311, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-2796, Fax: 202 693-3799, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1205-AB59
DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)
Final Rule Stage
80. Amendment to Claims Procedure Regulation
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135; ERISA sec. 505; 29 U.S.C. 1133
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2550.503-1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1133, provides that, in accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, each employee
benefit plan must provide ``adequate notice in writing to any
participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has
been denied.'' The notice must set forth the specific reasons for the
denial and must be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the claimant. Each plan must also afford ``a reasonable opportunity''
for any participant or beneficiary whose claim has been denied to
obtain ``full and fair review'' of the denial by the ``appropriate
named fiduciary of the plan.'' The Department has issued a regulation
pursuant to the above authority that establishes the minimum
requirements for benefit claims procedures of employee benefit plans
covered by title 1 of ERISA. See 29 CFR 2560.503-1. This rulemaking is
intended to strengthen, improve, and update the current disability
benefit claims and appeals process under the section 503 regulations.
Statement of Need: Because of the volume and constancy of
disability benefits litigation, the Department recognizes a need to
revisit, reexamine, and revise the current regulations to ensure that
disability claimants receive a fair review of denied claims as provided
by section 503 of ERISA. The rulemaking would revise and strengthen the
current claims procedure rules primarily by adopting certain procedural
protections and safeguards for disability benefit claims that are
currently applicable to claims for group health benefits pursuant to
the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 503 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1133,
requires every employee benefit plan to provide adequate notice in
writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits
under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for
such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
participant and to afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant
whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by
the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.
Section 503 also provides the Secretary of Labor with broad authority
to prescribe regulations governing a plan's claims procedure.
Alternatives: On November 18, 2015, the Department published in the
Federal Register a proposed rule revising the claims procedure
regulations for plans providing disability benefits under ERISA. The
Department received 145 public comments in response to the proposed
rule from plan participants, consumer groups representing disability
benefit claimants, employer groups, individual insurers and trade
groups representing disability insurance providers. In addition to the
approach set forth in the proposal, the Department will consider all
meaningful alternative rules and standards presented in these comment
letters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department expects that these
final regulations will improve the procedural protections for workers
who become disabled and make claims for disability benefits from ERISA-
covered employee benefit plans. This would result in some participants
receiving benefits they might otherwise have been denied absent the
fuller protections provided by the final regulations. In other
circumstances, expenditures by plans may be reduced as a fuller and
fairer disability claims processing helps facilitate participant
acceptance of cost management efforts. Greater certainty and
consistency in the handling of disability benefit claims and appeals
and improved access to information about the manner in which claims and
appeals are adjudicated may lead to efficiency gains in the system,
both in terms of the allocation of spending at a macro-economic level
as well as operational efficiencies among individual plans.
[[Page 94599]]
The Department believes that these requirements have modest costs
associated with them, since many chiefly clarify provisions of the
current claims procedure regulations or require provision of notices to
plan participants.
Risks: Undetermined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/18/15 80 FR 72014
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/19/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AB39
DOL--EBSA
81. Savings Arrangements Established by Political Subdivisions
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: The Department proposes to amend a regulation (29 CFR
2510.3-2(h)) that describes how states may design and operate payroll
deduction savings programs, using automatic enrollment, for private-
sector employees without causing the states or private-sector employers
to establish employee pension benefit plans under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The proposed amendments would
expand the current regulation to cover programs of political
subdivisions of states that otherwise comply with the current
regulation.
Statement of Need: On November 18, 2015, the Department published
in the Federal Register a proposed safe harbor regulation describing
specific circumstances in which state (but not state political
subdivisions, such as cities and counties) payroll deduction savings
programs with automatic enrollment would not give rise to the
establishment of employee pension benefit plans under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). Several
commenters on that proposal asserted that the scope of the safe harbor
regulation was too narrow and requested that the Department broaden it
beyond states to cover payroll deduction savings programs of state
political subdivisions, such as counties and cities. These commenters
asserted that such an expansion would promote broader access to
workplace retirement savings opportunities for employees, especially in
states that do not themselves establish state-level programs but do
have political subdivisions that would be willing to do so. The
Department agrees with commenters that there may be good reasons for
expanding the safe harbor to cover political subdivisions. Accordingly,
on August 30, 2016, the Department published a notice of proposed
rulemaking soliciting further comments on whether and how the safe
harbor should be expanded to state political subdivisions.
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: The notice of proposed rulemaking would expand the
safe harbor to cover payroll deduction savings programs of a limited
number of large (in terms of population) cities and other political
subdivisions. The Department considered three alternative criteria
suggested by commenters that it could use to narrow the universe of
eligible political subdivisions. The first suggested alternative
criterion is that a political subdivision would have a population equal
to or greater than the population of the least populous state. The
second suggested alternative criterion is that the state in which the
political subdivision exists does not have a state-wide retirement
savings program for private-sector employees. The third suggested
alternative criterion is that a political subdivision would have
demonstrated capacity to design and operate a payroll deduction savings
program, such as by maintaining a pension plan with substantial assets
for employees of the political subdivision. All of these alternatives
are under consideration. In addition, the Department will consider
other alternatives presented by commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In analyzing benefits and costs
associated with this proposed rule, the Department focuses on the
direct effects, which include both benefits and costs directly
attributable to the rule. These benefits and costs are limited, because
as stated above, the proposed rule would merely establish a safe harbor
describing the circumstances under which a qualified political
subdivision with authority under state law could establish payroll
deduction savings programs that would not give rise to ERISA-covered
employee pension benefit plans. It does not require qualified political
subdivisions to take any actions nor employers to provide any
retirement savings programs to their employees. The Department also
addresses indirect effects associated with the proposed rule, which
include: (1) Potential benefits and costs directly associated with the
requirements of qualified political subdivision payroll deduction
savings programs; and (2) the potential increase in retirement savings
and potential cost burden imposed on covered employers to comply with
the requirements of such programs. Indirect effects vary by qualified
political subdivisions depending on their program requirements and the
degree to which the proposed rule might influence political
subdivisions to design their payroll deduction savings programs.
Risks: Undetermined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/30/16 81 FR 59581
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/29/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
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-AB76
[[Page 94600]]
DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
Proposed Rule Stage
82. Respirable Crystalline Silica
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Current MSHA standards limit exposures to quartz
(crystalline silica) in respirable dust. Overexposure to crystalline
silica can result in some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible
but preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be fatal. 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. 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 have not been updated since 1985;
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 of silica, 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................................ 04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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
83. Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground
Mines
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
CFR Citation: 30 CFR 75.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule addresses 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, 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 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's proposed rule included an
estimate of the anticipated cost and benefits.
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 Extended........ 11/30/15 80 FR 74740
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 12/15/15
Reopening of Record................. 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration, 201 12th Street South,
[[Page 94601]]
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--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Prerule Stage
84. Preventing Workplace Violence in Healthcare
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The RFI will provide OSHA's history with the issue of
workplace violence in healthcare, including a discussion of the
Guidelines that were initially published in 1996, a 2014 update to the
Guidelines, and the recently published tools and strategies that were
shared with OSHA by healthcare facilities with effective violence
prevention programs. It will also discuss the Agency's use of 5(a)(1)
in enforcement cases in healthcare. The RFI solicits information
primarily from health care employers, workers and other subject matter
experts on impacts of violence, prevention strategies, and other
information that will be useful to the Agency if it decides to move
forward in rulemaking. OSHA will also solicit information from
stakeholders, including state officials, employers and workers, in the
nine states that require certain health healthcare facilities to have
some type of workplace violence prevention program.
Statement of Need: Workplace violence is a widespread problem, and
there is growing recognition that workers in healthcare occupations
face unique risks and challenges. In 2013, the rate of serious
workplace violence incidents (those requiring days off for an injured
worker to recuperate) was more than four times greater in healthcare
than in private industry on average. Healthcare accounts for nearly as
many serious violent injuries as all other industries combined.
Workplace violence comes at a high cost. It harms workers often both
physically and emotionally and makes it more difficult for them to do
their jobs.
In 2013, 80 percent of serious violent incidents reported in
healthcare settings were caused by interactions with patients. Other
incidents were caused by visitors, coworkers, or other people. Some
medical professions and settings are more at risk than others.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 psychiatric aides
experienced the highest rate of violent injuries that resulted in days
away from work, at approximately 590 injuries per 10,000 full-time
employees (FTEs). This rate is more than 10 times higher than the next
group, nursing assistants (about 55 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs,
and registered nurses (about 14 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs),
compared with a rate of 4.2 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs in U.S.
private industry as a whole. High-risk areas include emergency
departments, geriatrics, and behavioral health, among others.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request For Information (RFI)....... 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room N-3718,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AD08
DOL--OSHA
Proposed Rule Stage
85. Infectious Diseases
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 U.S.C.
660; 29 U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Employees in health care and other high-risk environments
face long-standing infectious disease hazards such as tuberculosis
(TB), varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles), and measles (rubeola),
as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats, such as Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and pandemic influenza. Health care
workers and workers in related occupations, or who are exposed in other
high-risk environments, are at increased risk of contracting TB, SARS,
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and other
infectious diseases that can be transmitted through a variety of
exposure routes. OSHA is concerned about the ability of employees to
continue to provide health care and other critical services without
unreasonably jeopardizing their health. OSHA is developing a standard
to ensure that employers establish a comprehensive infection control
program and control measures to protect employees from infectious
disease exposures to pathogens that can cause significant disease.
Workplaces where such control measures might be necessary include:
Health care, emergency response, correctional facilities, homeless
shelters, drug treatment programs, and other occupational settings
where employees can be at increased risk of exposure to potentially
infectious people. A standard could also apply to laboratories, which
handle materials that may be a source of pathogens, and to
pathologists, coroners' offices, medical examiners, and mortuaries.
Statement of Need: OSHA is considering the need for regulatory
action to address the risk to workers exposed to infectious diseases in
healthcare and other related high-risk environments. Especially given
recent events necessitating the careful treatment of individuals with
life-threatening infectious diseases, OSHA is concerned about the risk
posed to healthcare workers with the movement of healthcare delivery
from the traditional hospital setting into more diverse and smaller
workplace settings. The Agency initiated the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel process in the spring of 2014.
Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29
U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673.
Alternatives: OSHA offered several alternatives to the SBREFA panel
when presenting the proposed Infectious Disease (ID) rule. OSHA
considered a specification oriented rule rather than a performance
oriented rule, but this type of rule would provide less flexibility and
would likely fail to anticipate all of the potential hazards and
necessary controls for every type and every size of facility and would
under-protect workers. Exempting small entities from the rule was
considered, but approximately 1.5 million of the estimated 9 million
workers affected by the rule as outlined in the regulatory
[[Page 94602]]
framework work in very small entities, leaving these workers under-
protected. OSHA also considered changing the scope of the rule
restricting the ID rule to workers who have occupational exposure
during the provision of direct patient care in institutional settings
but based on the evidence thus far analyzed, those workers performing
other covered tasks in both institutional and non-institutional
settings face a risk of infection because of their occupational
exposure. Per the proposed rule, employers would be required to provide
medical removal protection (MRP) benefits. If OSHA eliminated the
requirement for MRP benefits, workers might be deterred from reporting
signs and symptoms that could be indicative of infection and might work
while sick (due to concerns about loss of pay or other such punitive
consequences), potentially resulting in further infections to co-
workers and/or patients. OSHA also considered the option of not
requiring employers to make vaccinations available to workers.
Vaccination is generally considered an important component of an
effective infection control program, as it protects inoculated workers
from infections, lessens chances of outbreaks by minimizing
transmission of infections from workers to other workers and patients,
and may also lessen the duration and severity of infections, depending
on the efficacy of the vaccine.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
Risks: During provision of direct patient care and the performance
of other covered tasks as outlined in the scope of the proposed rule,
workers are at risk for exposure to infections agents. The peer-
reviewed literature suggests that HCWs are especially susceptible to
exposures during the early stages of the emergence of novel infectious
agents or novel strains of known infectious agents. While the patients
who are the most ill with infectious diseases are most likely being
treated in hospitals, many patients with infectious diseases are
treated in ambulatory care settings during the early stages of the
disease while they are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. An
increasing number of patients who are ill and symptomatic with an
infectious disease are getting initial treatment at clinics that have
urgent care or immediate care services, rather than being treated at
hospital emergency rooms. Many patients with childhood illnesses such
as measles, mumps and pertussis are being treated at clinics, not
hospitals, unless they have severe cases. Currently, outbreaks of
measles, mumps and pertussis are occurring in various countries,
including the U.S. Workers in laboratories are tasked with the
identification of infectious agents causing outbreaks and are similarly
susceptible to exposures. OSHA believes that the 1998 and 2007 CDC/
HICPAC guidelines, along with other authoritative guidance documents
(e.g., CDC/NIH, 2009), and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications,
demonstrate a well-recognized risk of occupational exposure to
infectious agents for workers providing direct patient care and/or
performing other covered tasks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 05/06/10 75 FR 24835
RFI Comment Period End.............. 08/04/10 .......................
Analyze Comments.................... 12/30/10 .......................
Stakeholder Meetings................ 07/05/11 76 FR 39041
Initiate SBREFA..................... 06/04/14 .......................
Complete SBREFA..................... 12/22/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 10/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room N-3718,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AC46
DOL--OSHA
86. Standards Improvement Project IV
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: OSHA's Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) are intended
to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety
and health standards. The Agency has published three earlier final
standards to remove unnecessary provisions (63 FR 33450, 70 FR 1111, 76
FR 33590), thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected
employers. The Agency is initiating a fourth rulemaking effort to
identify unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork
requirements that are focused primarily on its construction standards
in 29 CFR 1926, as long as they do not diminish employee protections.
Statement of Need: OSHA's Standard Improvement Projects (SIPs) are
intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent
safety and health standards. The Agency has published three earlier
final standards to remove unnecessary provisions, thus reducing costs
or paperwork burden on affected employers. The Agency is initiating a
fourth rulemaking effort to identify unnecessary or duplicative
provisions or paperwork requirements that are focused primarily on its
construction standards in 29 CFR 1926, as long as they do not diminish
employee protections.
Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is conducting Phase IV of the
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-IV) in response to the President's
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review (76
FR 38210). SIP-IV will update three standards to align with current
medical practice, including a reduction to the number of necessary
employee x-rays, updates to requirements for pulmonary function
testing, and updates to the table used for decompression of employees
during underground construction. Additionally, the proposed revisions
include an update to the consensus standard incorporated by reference
for signs and devices used to protect workers near automobile traffic,
a revision to the requirements for roll-over protective structures to
comply with current consensus standards, updates for storage of digital
x-rays and the method of calling emergency services to allow for use of
current technology, and a revision to lockout/tagout requirements in
response to a court decision, among others. OSHA is also proposing to
remove from its standards the requirements that employers include an
employee's social security number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical
surveillance, and other records in order to protect employee privacy
and prevent identity fraud.
Alternatives: The main alternative OSHA considered for all of the
proposed changes contained in the SIP-IV rulemaking was retaining the
existing regulatory language, i.e., retaining the status quo. In each
instance, OSHA has concluded that the benefits of the proposed
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. In a few of the
items, such as the proposed changes
[[Page 94603]]
to the decompression requirements applicable to employees working in
compressed air environments, OSHA has requested public comment on
feasible alternatives to the Agency's proposal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency has estimated that one
revision (updating the method of identifying and calling emergency
medical services) may increase construction employers costs by about
$28,000 per year while two provisions (reduction in the number of
necessary employee x-rays and elimination of posting requirements for
residential construction employers) provide estimated costs savings of
$3.2 million annually. The Agency has not estimated or quantified
benefits to employees from reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to
employers for the reduced cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-
ray films, among others. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that
the proposed revisions are economically feasible and do not have any
significant economic impact on small businesses. The Preliminary
Economic Analysis in this preamble provides an explanation of the
economic effects of the proposed revisions.
Risks: SIP rulemakings do not address new significant risks or
estimate benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall,
SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because they
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 12/06/12 77 FR 72781
RFI Comment Period End.............. 02/04/13 .......................
NPRM................................ 10/04/16 81 FR 68504
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/05/16 .......................
Analyze Comments.................... 06/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Dean McKenzie, Director, Directorate of
Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-3468, FP Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2020, Fax: 202 693-1689, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AC67
DOL--OSHA
Final Rule Stage
87. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
PL 104-4.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In 1999 and 2001, OSHA was petitioned to issue an
emergency temporary standard for permissible exposure limit (PEL) to
beryllium by the United Steel Workers (formerly the Paper Allied-
Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union), Public Citizen Health
Research Group, and others. The Agency denied the petitions but stated
its intent to begin data gathering to collect needed information on
beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of usage. On November 26,
2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) (67 FR 70707) to
solicit information pertinent to occupational exposure to beryllium,
including: Current exposures to beryllium; the relationship between
exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects;
exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods;
and medical surveillance. In addition, the Agency conducted field
surveys of selected worksites to assess current exposures and control
methods being used to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. OSHA
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and completed the
SBREFA Report in January 2008. OSHA also completed a scientific peer
review of its draft risk assessment.
Statement of Need: Exposure to beryllium causes a disabling and
potentially fatal chronic lung disease called Chronic Beryllium Disease
(CBD). Exposure to beryllium has also been linked to lung cancer. OSHA
proposed to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) by 10 times to
0.2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air ([micro]g/m\3\) over
an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) and a short term exposure limit
(STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ over 15 minutes. The proposal also included
important requirements such as medical surveillance, medical removal
protection, regulated areas, training, and engineering controls.
Summary of Legal Basis: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657.
Alternatives: OSHA also proposed regulatory alternatives to its
proposed beryllium rule. These include: Scope alternatives to address
exposures in the construction and maritime industries; changes to the
proposed PEL and STEL; and changes to the proposed ancillary provisions
for exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and equipment,
medical surveillance, and medical removal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule for beryllium
covers approximately 35,000 workers in General Industry, and OSHA
estimated that the proposed rule when fully implemented would produce
$575.8 million in annualized benefits over 60 years, far outweighing
the expected cost of $37.6 million annually for workplaces in General
Industry.
Risks: Prevent 92 deaths from chronic beryllium disease, 4 deaths
from lung cancer, and 50 non-fatal cases of chronic beryllium disease
each year.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 11/26/02 67 FR 70707
RFI Comment Period End.............. 02/24/03 .......................
SBREFA Report Completed............. 01/23/08 .......................
Initiated Peer Review of Health 03/22/10 .......................
Effects and Risk Assessment.
Complete Peer Review................ 11/19/10 .......................
NPRM................................ 08/07/15 80 FR 47565
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/05/15 .......................
Notice of Public Hearing; Date 02/29/ 12/30/15 80 FR 81475
2016.
Notice of Public Hearing; Date 02/16/16 81 FR 7717
Change 03/21/2016.
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room N-3718,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AB76
BILLING CODE 4510-HL-P
[[Page 94604]]
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.''
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
[[Page 94605]]
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 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 Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduces costs on small
RIN Rulemaking title businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2105-AE29.......................... Transportation Services for TBD.
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 Right-of-Way N.
(RRR) (MAP-21).
9. 2125-AF65.......................... Buy America (RRR)............... TBD.
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. 210 to Y.
Incorporate the Use of a New
Force Application Device (RRR).
16. 2127-AL20......................... Upgrade of LATCH Usability ......................................
Requirements (MAP-21) (RRR).
17. 2127-AL24......................... Rapid Tire Deflation Test in ......................................
FMVSS No. 110 (RRR).
18. 2127-AL58......................... Upgrade of Rear Impact Guard ......................................
Requirements for Trailers and
Semitrailers (RRR).
19. 2130-AC40......................... Qualification and Certification ......................................
of Locomotive Engineers;
Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).
20. 2130-AC41......................... Hours of Service Recordkeeping; ......................................
Electronic Recordkeeping
Amendments (RRR).
21. 2130-AC43......................... Safety Glazing Standards; ......................................
Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).
22. 2137-AE72......................... Pipeline Safety: Gas Y.
Transmission (RRR).
23. 2137-AE80......................... Hazardous Materials: Y.
Miscellaneous Pressure Vessel
Requirements (DOT Spec
Cylinders) (RRR).
24. 2137-AE81......................... Hazardous Materials: Reverse Y.
Logistics (RRR).
25. 2137-AE86......................... Hazardous Materials: ......................................
Requirements for the Safe
Transportation of Bulk
Explosives (RRR).
26. 2137-AE94......................... Pipeline Safety: Operator ......................................
Qualification, Cost Recovery,
Accident and Incident
Notification, and Other Changes
(RRR).
27. 2137-AF00......................... Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Y.
Special Permits (MAP-21) (RRR).
28. 2137-AF04......................... Hazardous Materials: ......................................
Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR).
29. 2137-AF09......................... Hazardous Materials: ......................................
Miscellaneous Petitions for
Rulemaking (RRR).
30. 2137-AF10......................... Hazardous Materials: Revision of ......................................
the Requirements for Carriage
by Aircraft (RRR).
31. 2137-AF18......................... Hazardous Materials: ......................................
Harmonization with
International Standards (RRR).
32. 2137-AF19......................... Hazardous Materials: Revisions ......................................
to Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness Grants
Requirements (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
[[Page 94606]]
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 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. Since that time,
regulators have been developing and completing detailed work plans to
address the commitments in the Forward Plan. To facilitate future
cooperation, the RCC will continue to work 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD91.......................... Accessibility of Airports.
2105-AE06.......................... E-Cigarette.
2120-AJ38.......................... Airport Safety Management System.
[[Page 94607]]
2120-AJ60.......................... Small Unmanned Aircraft.
2120-AJ69.......................... Prohibition Against Certain Flights
Within the Territory and Airspace
of Afghanistan.
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.
2137-AF18.......................... Hazardous Materials: Harmonization
with International Standards
(RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 2017, 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
[[Page 94608]]
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 2017
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 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 2017 include:
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 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
[[Page 94609]]
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.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes
the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway
safety, and transit for the five-year period from 2016-2020. The FHWA
has analyzed the FAST Act 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 the FAST Act and
will update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently
enacted legislation.
During Fiscal Year 2017, 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:
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 2017 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 2017, FMCSA plans to 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 2017, FMCSA plans to 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.
Also in FY 2017, 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, 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 nonregulatory
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
NHTSA plans to issue a final rule on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)
communications in Fiscal Year 2017. V2V communications are currently
perceived to become a foundational aspect of vehicle automation. NHTSA
will publish a final rule on heavy vehicle speed limiters in response
to petitions for rulemaking and recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board. In Fiscal Year 2017 NHTSA will also
finalize rulemaking for Tire Fuel Efficiency in response to
requirements of the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. In
response to requirements in MAP-21, NHTSA plans to continue work toward
a final rule that would require automobile manufacturers to install a
seat belt reminder system for the front passenger and rear designated
seating positions in passenger vehicles. The seat
[[Page 94610]]
belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and thereby
improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would otherwise
have been unbelted.
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), the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act), 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, 19 of which have been completed. The
FAST Act requires an additional 13 rulemaking actions, 4 of which are
complete and 6 others are in the developmental or proposal stage. 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.
FRA is working to complete its on-going development of requirements
related to the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction
programs (RIN 2130-AC11). FRA is finalizing initial rulemaking
documents based on the recommendations of a Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) working group containing the fatigue management
provisions related to risk reduction and system safety programs. FRA is
also in the process of producing a final regulatory action related to
the transportation of crude oil and ethanol by rail, focusing on the
appropriate crew size requirements when transporting such commodities.
FRA's crew size activity will also address other freight and passenger
operations to ensure FRA will have appropriate oversight if a railroad
chooses to alter its standard method of operation. FRA continues its
work to produce a rulemaking containing RSAC-supported actions that
advance high-performing passenger rail to propose standards for
alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment (RIN 2130-AC51).
Through RSAC, FRA is developing recommendations for proposed rules
regarding track inspections aimed at improving rail integrity to allow
continuous rail integrity testing and to address rail head wear.
Finally, FRA is developing proposed rules related to the use of inward
and outward facing locomotive-mounted cameras and other recording
devices in response to a FAST Act mandate for such devices on passenger
locomotives.
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 2017 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.
[[Page 94611]]
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 the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
(OHMS), 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 the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), 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 2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7FD46010F0497123865B976479CFF3952E990200/filename/Pipeline%20Reauthorization%20Bill%202011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes,
including 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.
OHMS
On December 4, 2015, President Barack Obama signed legislation
entitled, ``Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015,'' or
the ``FAST Act.'' See Public Law 114-94. The FAST Act includes the
``Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015''
(Sections 7001 through 7311) which instructs the Secretary of
Transportation (``Secretary'') to make specific regulatory amendments
to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180).
PHMSA has been very effective in implementing the FAST Act provisions.
For example, PHMSA recently issued a final rule to expand requirements
for the use of the DOT Specification 117 tank car to all flammable
liquids, regardless of train make-up. This change will promote
consistency for all flammable liquid tank cars and simplify compliance
for shippers and carriers. As a result of these actions, all
retrofitted and newly constructed DOT Specification 117 tank cars will
be equipped with top fittings protection, jackets, thermal protection
systems, full height head shields, and better outlet valves. The
expanded use of the enhanced tank car will reduce the likelihood of a
flammable liquid release in the event of a derailment.
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 issued a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on July 29, 2016 (81 FR 50067), seeking comment
on potential revisions to its regulations that would expand the
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for
crude oil trains and require railroads to share information about high-
hazard flammable train operations with state and tribal emergency
response commissions to improve community preparedness. PHMSA will
continue to take regulatory actions to enhance the safe transportation
of energy products.
PHMSA is also looking to reduce the risk of transporting lithium
batteries by air. The safe transport of lithium batteries by air has
been an ongoing concern due to the unique challenges they pose to
safety in a transportation environment. Unlike other hazardous
materials, lithium batteries contain both a chemical and an electrical
hazard. This combination of hazards, when involved in a fire
encompassing significant quantities of lithium batteries, may exceed
the fire suppression capability of the aircraft and lead to a
catastrophic lithium battery event. PHMSA is developing regulatory
actions that will: (1) Prohibit the transport of lithium ion cells and
batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) require all lithium ion
cells and batteries to be shipped at not more than a 30 percent state
of charge on cargo-only aircraft; and (3) limits the use of alternative
provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments under 49 CFR
173.185(c). These amendments will predominately affect air carriers
(both passenger and cargo-only) and shippers offering lithium ion cells
and batteries for transport as cargo by aircraft. The amendments will
not restrict passengers or crew members from bringing personal items or
electronic devices containing lithium batteries aboard aircraft in
carry-on or checked baggage.
OPS
President Obama signed the Protecting our Infrastructure of
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (or the ``PIPES Act of
2016'') on June 22, 2016. The 2016 Act reauthorizes the pipeline safety
program and requires a number of reports and mandates. Under the 2016
Act, PHMSA is required to take regulatory actions to establish minimum
safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, and to
update the minimum safety standards for liquefied natural gas pipeline
facilities for permanent, small scale liquefied natural gas pipeline
facilities. The Act also contains regulatory mandates regarding
emergency order authority, unusually sensitive areas, and hazardous
materials identification numbers. PHMSA is in the process of taking the
necessary steps to address these mandates.
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
[[Page 94612]]
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.
Also, on April 8, 2016 [81 FR 20722], PHMSA proposed to revise the
requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations to address integrity
management principles for Gas Transmission pipelines. In particular,
PHMSA proposed 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 2016 to 2017 DOT Regulatory Plan
[This chart does not account for benefits and costs that could not be monetized, which may be substantial]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantifiable costs discounted Quantifiable benefits discounted
Agency/RIN No. Title Stage 2013 $ (millions) 2013 $ (millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ38......................... Airport Safety SNPRM (Analyzing $157.5........................... $225.9.
Management System. Comments 12/16).
2120-AJ87......................... Pilot Professional Published: Comment 46.8............................. 46.3.
Development. Period End 01/05/17.
2120-AK65......................... Revision of FR 12/16.............. 3.9.............................. 11.6.
Airworthiness
Standards for Normal,
Utility, Acrobatic,
and Commuter Category
Airplanes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2125-AF53......................... Performance Management FR 11/16.............. 21.2............................. Breakeven Analysis.
2. 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-AF54......................... Performance Management NPRM (Analyzing 15.3-21.1........................ Breakeven Analysis.
3. Comments 08/16) FR Note: These are preliminary
TBD. agency estimates only. They have
not been reviewed by others
outside of DOT. The estimates
could change after interagency
review..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AB11......................... Carrier Safety Fitness NPRM (Analyzing TBD.............................. TBD.
Determination. Comments) FR TBD.
2126-AB66......................... Entry Level Driver FR 11/16.............. TBD.............................. TBD.
Training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AL55......................... Light Vehicle V2V FR 10/17.............. TBD.............................. TBD.
Communications.
2127-AK92......................... Heavy Vehicle Speed FR 10/17.............. TBD.............................. TBD.
Limiters.
2127-AK76......................... Tire Fuel Efficiency FR10/17............... 10.6............................. 21.5.
Part 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2130-AC11......................... Risk Reduction Program FR 12/16.............. TBD.............................. TBD.
2130-AC51......................... Locomotive Recording NPRM 11/16............ TBD.............................. TBD.
Devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE66......................... Pipeline Safety: FR 12/16.............. TBD.............................. TBD.
Safety of On-Shore
Liquid Hazardous
Pipelines.
2137-AE72......................... Pipeline Safety: Gas NPRM (Analyzing TBD.............................. TBD.
Transmission (RRR). Comments).
FR TBD................
[[Page 94613]]
2137-AF08......................... Hazardous Materials: FR 07/17.............. 2.9m per year.................... Breakeven Analysis.
Oil Spill Response Cost-effective if this
Plans and Information requirement reduces risk by
Sharing for High- 3.7%.
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--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
88. +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. While the comments generated some
changes to the proposal in this document, most of the proposed core
elements of the SMS program remain in the SNPRM. The FAA now proposes
to require an SMS be developed, implemented, maintained, and adhered to
at any certificated airport that is: (i) Classified as a Small, Medium,
or Large hub airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems; (ii) identified by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection as a
port-of-entry, designated international airport, landing rights
airport, or user fee airport; or (iii) identified as having more than
100,000 total annual operations (according to best available data).
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 explored 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. The FAA focused on airports
with the highest passenger enplanements and largest total operations so
that safety benefits would flow to the overwhelming majority of
aircraft operations in the United States. The FAA also focused on
incorporating airports with international passenger operations to
ensure conformity with international standards and recommended
practices. To that end, the FAA developed the following alternatives
for additional analysis: (i) All part 139 airports (as originally
proposed); (ii) airport operators holding a Class I airport operating
certificate; (iii) certificated international airports regardless of
certificate class; (iv) Large, Medium, and Small hub airports (as
identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) and
certificated airports with more than 100,000 total annual operations;
and (v) Large, Medium, and Small hub airports, certificated airports
with more than 100,000 total annual operations, and certificated
international airports.
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 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
[[Page 94614]]
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.
Second NPRM......................... 07/14/16 81 FR 45871
Second NPRM Comment Period End...... 09/12/16
Analyzing Comments.................. 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 exceeded 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
89. +Pilot Professional Development
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); P.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 (Public Law 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................................ 10/07/16 81 FR 69908
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/05/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Boulevard, Lawndale, CA 90261,
Phone: 310 725-7342, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ00
RIN: 2120-AJ87
DOT--FAA
Final Rule Stage
90. +Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes (RRR)
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: Final, 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
[[Page 94615]]
design and certification of small transport category aircraft. This
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; and (7) address icing conditions that are currently not
included in part 23 regulations.
Statement of Need: The FAA's strategic vision--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.
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................................ 03/14/16 81 FR 13452
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/13/16
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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].
Analiese Marchesseault, Department of Transportation, Phone: 202-
366-1675, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK65.
DOT--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)
Final Rule Stage
91. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures 2 (MAP-21)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1203 P.L. 112-141; 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
[[Page 94616]]
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
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would
outweigh the costs.
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.......................... 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--FHWA
92. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures 3 (MAP-21)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1203, P.L. 112-141; 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................................ 04/22/16 81 FR 23806
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/20/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AF54
DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)
Final Rule Stage
93. +Entry-Level Driver Training (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384.
[[Page 94617]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FMCSA establishes new minimum training standards for
certain individuals applying for their commercial driver's license
(CDL) for the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL
holder seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials (H), passenger
(P), or school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. These
individuals are subject to the entry-level driver training (ELDT)
requirements and must complete a prescribed program of instruction
provided by an entity that is listed on FMCSA's Training Provider
Registry (TPR). FMCSA will submit training certification information to
State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs), who may only administer CDL
skills tests to applicants for the Class A and B CDL, and/or the P or S
endorsements, or knowledge test for the H endorsement, after verifying
the information is present in the driver's record. This final rule
responds to a Congressional mandate imposed under the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The 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 meetings between February and May 2015.
Statement of Need: This final rule enhances the safety of
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by
establishing a minimum standard for entry-level driver training (ELDT)
and increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. It replaces
existing mandatory training requirements for entry-level operators of
CMVs in interstate and intrastate operations required to possess a CDL.
The minimum training standards established in today's rule are for
certain individuals applying for a CDL for the first time, 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 the first
time. These individuals are subject to the ELDT requirements and must
complete a prescribed program of instruction provided by an entity
listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR).
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 considered several alternatives ini
developing the NPRM, but fully evaluated the alternative adopted by the
negotiated rulemaking committee in the NPRM analysis.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While FMCSA believes that this final
rule would at minimum achieve cost-neutrality, the net of quantified
costs and benefits results in an annualized net cost of $142 million at
a 7% discount rate. A 3.91% improvement in safety performance (that is,
a 3.91% reduction in the frequency of crashes involving those new
entry-level drivers who would receive additional pre-CDL training as a
result of this final rule during the period for which the benefits of
training are estimated to remain intact) is necessary to offset the
$142 million (annualized at 7%) net cost of this final rule.
Risks: A risk of a driver not receiving adequate training before
applying for a CDL.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/07/16 81 FR 11944
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/06/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-3740, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB06
RIN: 2126-AB66
DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
94. +Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information--Part 2
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32304
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 575.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to requirements of the
Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 to establish a national tire
fuel efficiency consumer information program for replacement tires
designed for use on motor vehicles. On March 30, 2010, NHTSA published
a final rule specifying the test procedures to be used to rate the
performance of replacement passenger car tires for this new program (75
FR 15893). This rulemaking would address how this information would be
made available to consumers.
Statement of Need: The EISA mandated the TFECIP to be finalized by
December 2009. In 2010, NHTSA finalized a regulation to require the
testing of replacement tires for rolling resistance (fuel efficiency),
wet traction (safety) and treadwear (durability). In December 2014, the
White House announced that the agency would publish the final rule by
2017.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is mandated by Public Law
110140, 121 Stat. 1492.
Alternatives: This rule is statutorily mandated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The agency estimates that annual net
benefits, in millions of 2013 dollars, will range between $1.2 and
$12.7 at a 3% discount rate, and between $0.2 and $10.9 at a 7%
discount rate.
Risks: The agency believes there are no significant risks related
to this rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second NPRM......................... 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mary Versailles, Office of Planning and Consumer
Standards, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, Phone: 202-366-2057, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AK83
RIN: 2127-AK76
DOT--NHTSA
95. +Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
[[Page 94618]]
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30116;
49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to petitions from ATA and
Roadsafe America to require the installation of speed limiting devices
on heavy trucks. In response to the petitions, NHTSA requested public
comment on the subject and received thousands of comments supporting
the petitioner[acute]s request. Based on the available safety data and
the ancillary benefit of reduced fuel consumption, this rulemaking
would consider a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that would
require the installation of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks. We
believe this rule would have minimal cost, as all heavy trucks already
have these devices installed, although some vehicles do not have the
limit set. This rule would decrease the estimated 1,115 fatal crashes
annually involving vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
lbs) on roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or above.
Statement of Need: Based on the agencies' review of the available
data, limiting the speed of heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of
crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities
and injuries. We expect that, as a result of the joint rulemaking,
virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed.
Summary of Legal Basis: NHTSA's authority is the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be
practicable and meet the need for motor vehicle safety while stated in
objective terms. FMCSA's authority is based on the Motor Carrier Act.
They are authorized to prescribe requirements for 1 qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, motor carrier; and 2 qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private
carrier, when needed to promote safety operations.
Alternatives: Other technologies limiting speed such as GPS,
visions systems, vehicle infrastructure communications, or some other
autonomous vehicle technology.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Annual net benefit estimates vary
with changing assumptions of the speed limit that is set. At a 7%
discount rate in millions of 2013 dollars, net benefits range between
$1,136 and $4,964 at a speed of 60 mph. At a speed of 65 mph, that
range is between $1,039 and $2,757. At 68 mph, that range is between
$475 and $1,260.
Risks: The agency believes there are no significant risks related
to this rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/07/16 81 FR 61941
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/07/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Markus Price, Safety Engineer, Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-0098,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB63
RIN: 2127-AK92
DOT--NHTSA
96. +Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 150--Vehicle to
Vehicle (V2V) Communication
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.150.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: V2V communications uses on-board dedicated short-range
radio communication (DSRC) devices to broadcast messages about a
vehicle's speed, heading, brake status, and other information to other
vehicles and receive the same information from the messages, with
extended range and `line-of-sight' capabilities. V2V's enhanced
detection distance and ability to `see' around corners or ``through''
other vehicles helps V2V-equipped vehicles uniquely perceive some
threats and warn their drivers accordingly. V2V technology can also be
fused with vehicle-resident technologies to potentially provide greater
benefits than either approach alone. V2V can augment vehicle-resident
systems by acting as a complete system, extending the ability of the
overall safety system to address other crash scenarios not covered by
V2V communications, such as lane and road departure. Additionally, V2V
communication is currently perceived to become a foundational aspect of
vehicle automation.
Statement of Need: V2V communications uses on-board dedicated
short-range radio communication (DSRC) devices to broadcast messages
about a vehicle's speed, heading, brake status, and other information
to other vehicles and receive the same information from the messages,
with extended range and line-of-sight capabilities. V2V's enhanced
detection distance and ability to see around corners or ``through''
other vehicles helps V2V-equipped vehicles uniquely perceive some
threats and warn their drivers accordingly. V2V technology can also be
fused with vehicle-resident technologies to potentially provide greater
benefits than either approach alone. V2V can augment vehicle-resident
systems by acting as a complete system, extending the ability of the
overall safety system to address other crash scenarios not covered by
V2V communications, such as lane and road departure. Additionally, V2V
communication is currently perceived to become a foundational aspect of
vehicle automation.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 30101.
Alternatives: No other alternatives are currently endorsed by the
agency.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Annualized monetized net benefit
estimates over 40 years, in millions of 2014 Dollars, range between
$20,058 and $23,487.
Risks: Timing, Public Acceptance.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/20/14 79 FR 49270
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/20/14 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Gregory Powell, Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-5206, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL55
[[Page 94619]]
DOT--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)
Proposed Rule Stage
97. +Locomotive Recording Devices
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 CFR 1.89; 49 U.S.C. 20103; 49 U.S.C. 20107; 49
U.S.C. 20168
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 217; 49 CFR 218; 49 CFR 229.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 4, 2017, FAST Act.
Abstract: This rulemaking would require the installation of inward-
and outward-facing locomotive video cameras on controlling locomotives
of trains traveling over 30 mph. The recordings would be used to help
determine the cause of railroad accidents in order to prevent the
occurrence of similar accidents. They would also be used to ensure
railroad employee compliance with applicable Federal railroad safety
regulations and railroad rules, particularly regulations prohibiting
the use of personal electronic devices. This rulemaking attempts to
fulfill NTSB recommendations urging FRA to adopt regulations requiring
locomotive-mounted audio and video recording devices. FRA is requesting
comments regarding whether audio recording devices should be required.
This rulemaking would amend 49 CFR parts 217, 218, and 229.
Statement of Need: FRA is proposing to require the installation and
use of inward- and outward-facing recording devices in train
locomotives under section 11411 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1686 (Dec. 4,
2015)) (codified at 48 U.S.C. 20168) and the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. 20103. Section 11411 of the FAST Act requires
FRA (as the Secretary of Transportation's delegate) to promulgate
regulations requiring each railroad carrier that provides regularly
scheduled intercity rail passenger or commuter rail passenger
transportation to the public to install inward- and outward-facing
image recording devices in all controlling locomotives of passenger
trains. Section 20103 contains FRA's general rulemaking authority ``for
every area of railroad safety.''
Summary of Legal Basis: As stated above, FRA is publishing this
proposed rule as mandated by the FAST Act and under its general
railroad safety rulemaking authority at 49 U.S.C. 20103.
Alternatives: TBD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FRA will determine the estimated
costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule before
publication.
Risks: TBD.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-6063, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2130-AC51
DOT--FRA
Final Rule Stage
98. +Risk Reduction Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Public Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848 et
seq.; Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; sec. 103, 49 U.S.C. 20156
``Railroad Safety Risk Reduction Program''
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 237.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, October 16, 2012, Final Rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking would consider appropriate contents for
Risk Reduction Programs and how they should be implemented and reviewed
by FRA.
Statement of Need: Rulemaking required by section 103 of the Rail
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/08/10 75 FR 76345
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 02/07/11 .......................
NPRM................................ 02/27/15 80 FR 10950
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/28/15 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 07/30/15 80 FR 45500
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/10/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: SB--N, IC--N, SLT--N. A comment on this
rulemaking was received during the RRR process. Following publication
of an ANPRM, hearings were held on July 19, 2011 (Chicago, IL) and July
21, 2011 (Washington, DC).
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-6063, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2130-AC11
DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)
Final Rule Stage
99. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In recent years, there have been significant hazardous
liquid pipeline accidents, most notably the 2010 crude oil spill near
Marshall, Michigan, during which almost one million gallons of crude
oil were spilled into the Kalamazoo River. In response to accident
investigation findings, incident report data and trends, and
stakeholder input, PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015. Previously,
Congress had enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act that included several provisions that are relevant to the
regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines. Shortly after the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act was passed, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its accident
investigation report on the Marshall, Michigan accident. In this
rulemaking action, PHMSA is amending the Pipeline Safety Regulations to
improve protection of the public, property, and the environment by
closing regulatory gaps where appropriate, and ensuring that operators
are increasing the detection and remediation of unsafe conditions, and
mitigating the adverse effects of hazardous liquid pipeline failures.
Statement of Need: PHMSA is proposing to make the following
[[Page 94620]]
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 time frames for re-
mediating 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; (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; and (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
Comment Period Extended............. 01/04/11 76 FR 303
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/18/11 .......................
Extended Comment Period End......... 02/18/11 .......................
NPRM................................ 10/13/15 80 FR 61610
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/08/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 A. Gale, Transportation Regulations
Specialist, 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
100. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 174; 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 172; 49
CFR 173.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking, developed in consultation with the
Federal Railroad Administration, would revise PHMSA's regulations to
expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans
(OSRPs) based on thresholds of liquid petroleum oil that apply to an
entire train. We are also proposing to revise the format and clarify
requirements of a comprehensive OSRP and to require railroads to share
information about high-hazard flammable train operations with state and
tribal emergency response organizations (i.e., State Emergency Response
Commissions and Tribal Emergency Response Commissions) to improve
community preparedness. Lastly, PHMSA is proposing an update to boiling
point testing procedures to provide regulatory flexibility and promotes
enhanced safety in transport through accurate packing group assignment.
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
[[Page 94621]]
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 ANPRM requested comments on both
the path forward and the economic impacts. We have evaluated and
accounted for comments in development of the NPRM, and once the NPRM is
published 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................................ 07/29/16 81 FR 50067
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/27/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 07/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Agency Contact: Victoria Lehman, Transportation 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 policies, 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.
As part of TTB's ongoing efforts to modernize its regulations, TTB
continuously identifies changes in the industries it regulates, as well
as new technologies available in compliance enforcement. TTB's
modernization efforts focus on removing outdated requirements and
revising the regulations to facilitate industry growth and reduce
burdens where possible, while at the same time ensuring that TTB
collects revenue due and protects consumers from deceptive labeling and
advertising of alcohol beverages.
On June 21, 2016, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (81
FR 40404) to clarify and streamline import procedures, and support the
implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and the
filing of import information electronically in conjunction with an
electronic import filing with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The proposed amendments include providing the option for importers to
file TTB-specific import-related data electronically when filing entry
or entry summary data electronically with CBP, as an alternative to
current TTB requirements that importers submit paper documents to CBP
upon importation.
On August 30, 2016, TTB published a final rule to amend its
regulations governing specially denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely
denatured alcohol (CDA) to, among other things, eliminate the need for
industry members to submit certain formulas to TTB for approval. Under
the authority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (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 had been raised that the existing
regulations may create significant roadblocks for industry members in
getting products to the marketplace quickly and efficiently. TTB
determined that it could amend its regulations to address these
concerns and reduce regulatory burdens, while posing no added risk to
the revenue. The final rule eliminates outdated formulas, reclassifies
certain SDA formulas as CDA, and provides new general-use formulas for
articles made
[[Page 94622]]
with SDA. TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent
reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from
industry members.
On July 1, 2016, TTB published an interim final rule (81 FR 43062)
to implement the provisions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Adjustment Act), as amended by the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. This rulemaking
increases the maximum civil monetary penalty for violations of the
Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 from $10,000 to $19,787, in
accordance with Federal law. The increased maximum penalty will help
maintain the deterrent effect of the penalty, which is a stated goal of
the Inflation Adjustment Act. As authorized under the law, TTB will
announce future cost-of-living adjustments to the penalty by publishing
a notice in the Federal Register and updating its Web site.
On June 21, 2016, TTB published a final rule (81 FR 40183) to adopt
temporary regulations it had issued on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 38555)
concerning permit and other requirements related to importers and
manufacturers of tobacco products and processed tobacco. The regulatory
amendments adopted in the final rule include an extension in the
duration of new permits for importers of tobacco products and processed
tobacco from three years to five years. Importers who wish to continue
to engage in the business beyond the duration of the permit must renew
their permits before expiration. Less frequent renewal reduces the
regulatory burden on the importers. Temporary regulations issued under
the IRC expire three years after the date of issuance, and publication
of the final rule made permanent this extension of the duration of new
importer permits.
In FY 2017, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that will update its
Import and Export regulations, Labeling Requirements regulations,
Nonbeverage Products regulations, and Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting
requirements. Priority projects also include implementing new statutory
provisions that go into effect in FY 2017 as a result of the Protecting
Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act).
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following
regulatory matters:
Revisions to Import and Export Regulations Related to ITDS. TTB is
currently preparing for the implementation of ITDS and, specifically,
the transition to an all-electronic import and export environment.
ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and Accountability
for Every Port Act of 2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') (Pub. L. 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 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-electronic environment is part of the
implementation process.
TTB completed its review of the relevant regulatory requirements
and identified those that it intends to update. With regard to imports,
as noted above, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking in June
2016 to amend its import regulations to support the implementation of
ITDS and incorporate needed updates. TTB also continues to operate a
pilot program (originally announced in August 2015) for importers who
want to gain experience with the ITDS ``single window'' functionality
for providing data on the TTB-regulated commodities. This pilot program
helps familiarize both TTB and the public with the new environment and
assists TTB and the public to refine the implementation of ITDS. The
pilot program also provides valuable information for TTB's ongoing
efforts to amend its regulations. In FY 2017, TTB intends to publish a
final rule on the proposed changes to its import regulations.
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 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 follow procedures that do not adequately
reflect current technology or take into account current industry
business practices. In FY 2017, TTB intends to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking that will address electronic submission of
information through ITDS for exports and 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 Regulations to Implement the PATH Act. On December
18, 2015, the President signed into law the PATH Act, which is Division
Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The PATH Act contains
changes to certain statutory provisions that TTB administers in the IRC
regarding excise tax due dates, bond requirements, and the definition
of wine eligible for the hard cider tax rate. These amendments take
effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB is currently working on two
separate rulemaking projects to be published in FY 2017 that will
implement these changes. First, TTB is implementing provisions that
allow certain small alcohol beverage excise taxpayers to file tax
returns less frequently and to qualify for an exemption from certain
bond requirements. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens on
small businesses. Second, TTB is implementing changes to the definition
of wine that is eligible for the hard cider tax rate. These changes
will increase the allowable alcohol content and carbonation level of
such wines and authorize the use of pears, pear juice concentrate, and
pear products and flavorings.
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 2017 revisions to modernize the
[[Page 94623]]
regulations concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled
spirits, and malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory
changes will assist industry in voluntary compliance, decrease industry
burden, and result in the regulated industries being able to bring
products to market without undue delay. TTB projects that it will
receive over 160,000 label applications in FY 2016.
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 2017, offers a new method of formula
certification by incorporating quantitative standards into the
regulations and establishing new voluntary procedures that would
further streamline the formula review process for products that meet
the standards. This proposal would provide adequate protection to the
revenue because TTB would continue to receive submissions of certified
formulas; however, TTB would not take action on certified formula
submissions unless TTB discovered that the formulas require correction.
By allowing for self-certification of certain nonbeverage product
formulas, this proposal would eliminate the requirement for TTB to
formally approve such formulas. These changes would result in
significant cost savings for the nonbeverage alcohol industry, which
currently must obtain formula approval from TTB, and reduce the number
of formulas that TTB must review.
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
concerns the distilled spirits industry has raised about reporting, 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 because of the
more efficient and effective processing of reports and the use of
report data to reconcile industry member tax accounts. In FY 2017, TTB
intends to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that
will include new proposals to address comments received in response to
the initial notice of proposed rulemaking and incorporate additional
improvements identified by TTB in the interim.
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 expand economic opportunity for underserved people and
communities by supporting the growth and capacity of a national network
of community development lenders, investors, and financial service
providers. 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 Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program
(BGP).
In FY 2017, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for the
Capital Magnet Fund and the CDFI Program to incorporate a variety of
technical and policy changes.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters,
regulates, and supervises all national banks and Federal savings
associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches
and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's mission is to ensure that
national banks and FSAs operate in a safe and sound manner, provide
fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply
with applicable laws and regulations.
Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2016 include:
Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR
part 45). The banking agencies, Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a final 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 rule implements 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. The Agencies also issued an
interim final rule that exempts certain non-cleared swaps and non-
cleared security-based swaps with certain counterparties that qualify
for an exception or exemption from clearing from the initial and
variation margin requirements promulgated under sections 731 and 764 of
the Dodd-Frank Act. The rule implements Title III of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015, which exempts from the
Agencies' swap margin rules non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-
based swaps in which a counterparty qualifies for an exemption or
exception from clearing under the Dodd-Frank Act. The final and interim
final rules were issued on November 30, 2015, 81 FR 74839 and 74915 and
the interim final rule was finalized on August 2, 2016, 81 FR 50605.
Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain
Large Insured National Banks, Insured FSAs, and Insured Federal
Branches (12 CFR part 30). The OCC issued a proposed rule setting forth
enforceable guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning by
insured national banks, insured FSAs, and insured Federal branches of
foreign banks with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or
more (Guidelines). The Guidelines would be issued as an appendix to the
OCC's 12 CFR part 30 safety and soundness standards regulations and
would be enforceable by the terms of the Federal statute that
authorizes the OCC to prescribe operational and managerial standards
for national banks and FSAs. The proposed rule was issued on December
17, 2015, 80 FR 78681 and the final rule was issued on October 29,
2016, 81 FR 66791.
Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section
956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, National
Credit Union
[[Page 94624]]
Administration (NCUA), Securities and Exchange Commission (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
guidelines 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 executive 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 June 10, 2016, 81 FR
37669.
Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50). The banking agencies
issued 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. The proposed rule
was issued on June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996
Amendments (12 CFR parts 4 to 5, 7, 9 to 12, 16, 18, 31, 150 to 151,
155, 162 to 163, 194, and 197). The OCC issued a proposed rule with the
goal of removing provisions that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly
burdensome. The proposal would revise certain licensing rules related
to chartering applications, business combinations involving Federal
mutual savings associations, and notices for changes in permanent
capital; clarify national bank director oath requirements; revise
certain fiduciary activity requirements for national banks and FSAs;
remove certain financial disclosure regulations for national banks;
remove certain unnecessary regulatory reporting, accounting, and
management policy regulations for FSAs; update the electronic
activities regulation for FSAs; integrate and update OCC regulations
for national banks and FSAs relating to municipal securities dealers,
Securities Exchange Act disclosure rules, and securities offering
disclosure rules; update and revise recordkeeping and confirmation
requirements for national banks' and FSAs' securities transactions;
integrate and update regulations relating to insider and affiliate
transactions; and make other technical and clarifying changes. The
proposed rule was issued on March 14, 2016, 81 FR 13608.
Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured Depository
Institutions and U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (12 CFR
part 4). The banking agencies issued an interim final rule to implement
section 83001 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (the
FAST Act). Section 83001 of the FAST Act permits a qualifying insured
depository institution (institution) with up to $1 billion in total
assets to be examined by its appropriate Federal banking agency no less
than once during each 18-month period. The OCC's interim final rule
expands eligibility for the 18-month examination cycle to qualifying
national banks, Federal savings associations, and Federal branches and
agencies with less than $500 million in total assets to those with less
than $1 billion in total assets. The interim final rule was issued on
February 29, 2016, 81 FR 10063.
Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments (12 CFR parts 19 and
109). The OCC issued an interim final rule implementing the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the
2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74, title VII, section 701(b), November 2, 2015)
and Office of Management and Budget guidance issued on February 24,
2016. The 2015 Act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The 2015 Act
changed the formula for calculating inflation adjustments and required
agencies to adjust penalties for inflation on an annual basis. The
interim final rule was issued on July 1, 2016, 81 FR 43021.
Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold (12
CFR part 34). The OCC, the FRB, and the CFPB issued a proposed rule
amending the official interpretations for their regulations that
implement section 129H of the Truth in Lending Act, which establishes
special appraisal requirements for ``higher-risk mortgages.'' The
banking agencies, the CFPB, the NCUA and the FHFA issued joint final
rules implementing these requirements, which exempted, among other loan
types, transactions of $25,000 or less, and required that this loan
amount be adjusted annually based on any annual percentage increase in
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W). If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the
OCC, the FRB and the CFPB will not adjust this exemption threshold from
the prior year. The proposal would memorialize this as well as the
calculation method for determining the adjustment in years following a
year in which there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W. The
proposed rule was issued on August 4, 2016, 81 FR 51394.
Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial
Contracts (12 CFR parts 3, 47, and 50). The OCC issued a proposed rule
to promote U.S. financial stability by enhancing the safety and
soundness of the national banking system by mitigating potential
negative impacts that could result from the disorderly resolution of
certain systemically important national banks, FSAs, Federal branches
and agencies, and the subsidiaries of these entities. A covered bank
would be required to ensure that a covered qualified financial contract
contains a contractual stay-and-transfer provision analogous to the
statutory stay-and-transfer provision imposed under Title II of the
Dodd-Frank Act and in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and limits the
exercise of default rights based on the insolvency of an affiliate of
the covered bank. The proposed rule was issued on August 19, 2016, 81
FR 55381.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2017 include finalizing any
proposals listed above as well as the following rulemakings:
Automated Valuation Models (parts 34 and 164). The banking
agencies, NCUA, FHFA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),
in consultation with the Appraisal Subcommittee (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.
Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to
issue a
[[Page 94625]]
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.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Covered Trading
Activities (12 CFR part 44). The banking agencies, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the SEC are planning to issue a
proposed rule that would modify the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for covered trading activities under Appendix A of the
final rule implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956, which was added by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood Insurance
(12 CFR part 22). The banking agencies, the FCA, and the NCUA are
planning to issue a proposed rule to amend their regulations regarding
loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private
flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2012 (the Biggert-Waters Act). The proposed rule was issued on
November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
Receiverships for Uninsured National Banks (12 CFR part 51). The
OCC is planning to issue a proposed rule addressing the conduct of
receiverships of national banks that are not insured by the FDIC and
for which the FDIC would not be appointed as receiver.
Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards (12 CFR part 30). The
banking agencies are considering issuing an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking setting forth enhanced cyber risk management standards for
the largest and most interconnected financial organizations in the
United States.
The banking agencies and the NCUA plan to issue interim final rules
to clarify the applicability of recent amendments to the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) customer due diligence rules to the
depository institutions under their supervision. FinCEN clarified and
strengthened its customer due diligence requirements for covered
financial institutions, including banks, brokers or dealers in
securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and
introducing brokers in commodities (FinCEN Rule). As part of that
rulemaking, FinCEN amended the elements of the anti-money laundering
program financial institutions must implement and maintain in order to
satisfy program requirements under 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1). The banking
agencies and the NCUA are amending their anti-money laundering program
rules to maintain consistency with the FinCEN Rule.
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 prescribe 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 Customs and Border Protection's Bond
Program final rule, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
final rule, Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties interim final rule, and the North American Free
Trade Agreement Preference Override notice of proposed rulemaking. On
November 13, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published
the final rule (80 FR 70154) to the CBP regulations which amended CBP
regulations to reflect the centralization of the continuous bond
program at CBP's Revenue Division. The changes 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. On January 15, 2016, CBP published the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement final rule (81 FR 2086) to the CBP
regulations, which finalized the implementation of the preferential
tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In addition,
on August 22, 2016, CBP and Treasury issued an interim final rule
titled ``Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties'' which amended CBP regulations implementing
section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of
2015. CBP and Treasury also issued on July 8, 2016, a proposed rule (81
FR 44555) titled ``North American Free Trade Agreement Preference
Override'' which proposed amending CBP regulations to liberalize
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
preference rules of origin that relate to certain goods, including
certain spices.
This past fiscal year, Treasury and CBP worked 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'') (Pub. L. 109-347), is 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. To enhance
Federal coordination associated with the development of the ITDS,
Treasury and CBP issued an interim regulation (80 FR 61278) in
connection with the establishment of the Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) as a CBP-authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
System. This regulatory document informed 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). CBP issued subsequent Federal Register
notices announcing the dates when ACE replaced the Automated Commercial
System (ACS) as the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing commercial
trade data.
During fiscal year 2017, 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.
[[Page 94626]]
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 liberalization of the NAFTA
preference rules of origin that relate to certain goods, including
certain spices.
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.
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 2016, FinCEN issued the following regulatory
actions:
Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustment and Table. On June 30, 2016,
FinCEN issued an Interim Final Rule amending the BSA regulations to
adjust the maximum amount or range, as set by statute, of certain civil
monetary penalties within its jurisdiction to account for inflation.
The action was taken to implement the requirements of the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as further amended by the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015.
Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On May 11, 2016, FinCEN issued
Final 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 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. On March 10, 2016,
FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address requests from
filers for clarification of certain requirements regarding the Report
of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, including requirements with
respect to employees, who have signature authority over, but no
financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of their
employers.
Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities. On
April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued an NPRM proposing 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.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a
Federal Functional Regulator. On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued 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.
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 imposing the fifth special measure under
section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act against FBME. 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 U.S. 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 before the rule's effective date of August 28, 2015. On March
31, 2016, FinCEN issued a Final Rule imposing a prohibition on U.S.
financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent
account for, or on behalf of, FBME in place of the rule published in
2015. On July 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia ordered that the implementation of the Final Rule be stayed
until further notice from the Court.
[[Page 94627]]
Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 4
written guidance pieces, and provided 17 responses to requests for
administrative rulings and written inquiries/correspondence
interpreting the BSA and providing clarity to regulated industries.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2017 include
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by
fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential
projects:
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 is considering various regulatory actions 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 and SAR Requirements for Investment
Advisers. On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register
an 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.
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 2017, 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, Public Law
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes 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. On
December 30, 2015, the Fiscal Service published an Interim Final Rule,
with request for comments, limiting the time period during which
Treasury may recover certain tax refund offset collections from States
to six months from the date of such collection. Previously, there was
no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were collected from tax
refunds to which the debtor taxpayer was not entitled. The Fiscal
Service proposes to publish a Final Rule for this time limit for such
recoupments in fiscal year 2017.
Management of Federal Agency Receipts, Disbursements and Operation
of the Cash Management Improvements Fund. The Fiscal Service plans to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 31 CFR 206 governing
the collection of public money, along with a request for public
comments. This notice will propose implementing statutory authority
which mandates that some or all nontax payments made to the Government,
and accompanying remittance information, be submitted electronically.
Receipt of such items electronically offers significant efficiencies
and cost-savings to the government, compared to the receipt of cash,
check or money order payments.
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 2017, 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,
[[Page 94628]]
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 2017, 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 related to the employer shared responsibility
provisions under section 4980H;
Regulations under section 4980I of the Code relating to
the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage;
Final regulations on expatriate health plans under the
Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 for purposes of
sections 36B, 162(m)(6), 4377, 5000A, 6055, and 6056 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 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. In addition, on December 18, 2015, the President signed the
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes of 2015 (the PATH Act), which added
new section 41(h). That section allows qualified small businesses to
elect to claim a portion of the section 41 credit against the
employer's portion of certain payroll taxes. Treasury and the IRS plan
to provide guidance on eligibility for the election, how and where to
claim the election, and how the credit will be recaptured in certain
situations.
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 signed H.R.
3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice
Improvement Act of 2015 (Act) (Pub. 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 file
statements with the IRS and furnish statements to certain estate
beneficiaries providing information regarding the value of certain
property acquired from a decedent. Section 6662(k) provides a
[[Page 94629]]
penalty for certain recipients of property acquired from an estate
required to file a return after July 31, 2015, who report a basis that
is inconsistent with the value determined under section 1014(f) when
the property is sold (or deemed sold). Treasury and the IRS published
three notices and proposed and temporary regulations under sections
1014, 6035, and 6662(k) providing, respectively, guidance on the
compliance date under section 6035 and guidance regarding: (1) The
requirement that a recipient's basis in certain property acquired from
a decedent be consistent with the value of the property as finally
determined for Federal estate tax purposes; and (2) the accompanying
filing requirements for certain executors and other persons. On August
21, 2015, Notice 2015-57 (2015-36 IRB 294) was issued delaying the due
date for any statements required by section 6035 to February 29, 2016.
On February 11, 2016, Treasury and IRS issued Notice 2016-19 (2016-9
IRB 362), providing that statements required under section 6035 need
not be filed until March 31, 2016, and on March 23, 2016, issued Notice
2016-27 (2016-15 IRB 576), providing that statements under section 6035
need not be filed until June 30, 2016. For statements required under
sections 6035(a)(1) and (a)(2) that are required to be filed after June
30, 2016, those statements are to be filed in no case at a time later
than the earlier of (i) the date which is 30 days after the date on
which the return under section 6018 was required to be filed (including
extensions, if any) or (ii) the date which is 30 days after the date
such return is filed. The IRS is in the process of finalizing the
regulations, the applicable form, schedule, and instructions to
facilitate compliance with sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k). It is
expected that Treasury and IRS will issue final regulations within 18
months of July 31, 2015.
Definition of Issue Price for Tax-Exempt Bonds. On September 16,
2013, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (78 FR 56842)
to address certain issues involving the arbitrage investment
restrictions under section 148 of the Code, including guidance on the
issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield. On June
24, 2015, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (80 FR
36301) that revised the 2013 guidance on the issue price definition.
Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the 2015 proposed regulations.
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 for purposes of section 103 of the Code. Proposed
regulations (REG-129067-15) were published in the Federal Register on
February 23, 2016 (81 FR 8870). Treasury and the IRS are considering
comments on the proposed regulations and expect to issue regulations on
this issue in fiscal year 2017.
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 (2008-1 CB 252)
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 the fiscal year, 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 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.
Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or
Indebtedness. Section 385 of the Code grants the Secretary of the
Treasury the authority to prescribe regulations as necessary or
appropriate to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be
treated as stock or indebtedness or as part stock and part indebtedness
for Federal income tax purposes. On April 4, 2016, Treasury and the IRS
issued proposed regulations under section 385 that would establish
threshold documentation requirements for determining whether certain
related party interests in a corporation are characterized as stock or
indebtedness for Federal tax purposes. The proposed regulations also
would treat certain related party interests that otherwise would be
treated as indebtedness for Federal income tax purposes as stock.
Treasury and the IRS issued final and temporary regulations on these
issues on October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72858).
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, both the distributing and controlled corporations must be
engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business immediately after
the distribution, and the transaction must not be used as a device for
the distribution of earnings and profits or to circumvent Congress'
intent in repealing the General Utilities doctrine. Treasury and the
IRS have published proposed regulations that address (a) whether the
active trade or business requirement is met when a distribution
involves small active businesses relative to other assets and (b)
whether a distribution raises device concerns because either the
distributing or controlled corporation has a substantial percentage of
nonbusiness assets. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue final
regulations on these issues. Treasury and the IRS also intend to issue
additional guidance addressing: (a) When a distribution, otherwise
qualifying under section 355, circumvents Congress' intent in repealing
the General Utilities doctrine; and (b) the tax treatment under
sections 355 and 361 when debt of the distributing corporation is
issued and
[[Page 94630]]
such debt is retired using stock or securities of the controlled
corporation, and (c) the tax treatment when cash or property is
transferred between a distributing or controlled corporation and its
shareholder(s) in connection with the distribution. Treasury and the
IRS also intend to finalize proposed regulations that would define
predecessor and successor corporations for purposes of the exception to
tax-free treatment under section 355(e).
Assistance to Troubled Financial Institutions. Section 597 grants
the Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to prescribe regulations
determining the treatment of any transaction in which Federal financial
assistance is provided to a bank or domestic building and loan
association. Treasury and the IRS have issued final regulations under
section 597. In the wake of the most recent financial crisis and
changes in the form of government assistance that have developed since
the final regulations were issued, Treasury and the IRS published
proposed regulations that would reflect those changes. Treasury and the
IRS intend to issue final regulations on these issues.
Redetermination of the Consolidated Net Unrealized Built-in Gain
and Net Unrealized Built-in Loss. Section 382 limits the amount of
taxable income that can be offset by net operating loss carryovers.
Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations modifying the
application of section 382 to consolidated groups, specifically
regarding the time that recognized built-in loss is treated as reducing
consolidated net unrealized built-in loss. Treasury and the IRS intend
to issue final regulations on these issues.
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 2017.
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. On August 6, 2015, Treasury and the IRS issued Notice
2015-54 (2015-34 IRB 210) describing regulations to be issued under
that authority. By the end of 2016, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue
temporary and proposed regulations implementing the guidance described
in Notice 2015-52. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the
temporary and proposed regulations in this fiscal year.
Reporting requirements applicable to certain foreign-owned
entities. On May 5, 2016, Treasury and the IRS issued proposed
regulations that would require foreign-owned entities that are
disregarded entities for tax purposes, including foreign-owned single-
member limited liability companies (LLCs), to obtain an employer
identification number (EIN) with the IRS. These changes are intended to
provide the IRS with improved access to information that will allow the
United States to comply with international standards on tax and
transparency, as well as strengthen the enforcement of U.S. tax laws.
Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the proposed regulations in
this fiscal year.
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. In addition,
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations in Fiscal
Year 2017 to provide guidance on the treatment of foreign currency gain
or loss of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the exclusion
from foreign personal holding company income for income from
transactions directly related to the business needs of the CFC, as well
as related timing and other issues.
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 2017.
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 2017.
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
this fiscal year 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
[[Page 94631]]
could be subject to the accuracy-related penalty on underpayments or
reportable transaction understatements and the reasonable cause
exception.
Inversion Transactions. On January 17, 2014, Treasury and the IRS
issued temporary and proposed regulations providing guidance on the
application of the ownership test under section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). On
April 4, 2016, Treasury and the IRS issued temporary and proposed
regulations providing further guidance on the application of sections
7874 and 367 of the Code to inversion transactions, as well as on
certain tax avoidance transactions that are commonly undertaken after
an inversion transaction. In this fiscal year, 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 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; and 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
the aforementioned chapter 3, 4 and 61 regulations; issuing proposed
regulations covering the compliance requirements of entities acting as
sponsoring entities on behalf of certain foreign entities; issuing
updated agreements for foreign financial institutions, qualified
intermediaries (including qualified derivatives dealers), and
withholding foreign partnerships and withholding foreign trusts; and
issuing regulations on refunds and credits.
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. By the end of 2016,
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue temporary and proposed regulations
setting forth the rules described in those notices. Treasury and the
IRS also plan to issue proposed regulations setting forth substantial
additional guidance under section 901(m). Treasury and the IRS expect
to finalize the proposed regulations during this fiscal year.
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 intend to finalize the
proposed section 367 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 2017 fiscal year, taking into account all
comments received.
Certified Professional Employer Organization guidance. On May 6,
2016, Treasury and the IRS published final, temporary, and proposed
regulations which set forth the Federal employment tax liabilities and
other obligations of persons certified by the IRS as certified
professional employer organizations (CPEOs) in accordance with
provisions enacted as part of the ABLE Act. The temporary regulations
address the requirements relating to applying for and maintaining
certification as a CPEO and some related definitions. In July 2016, the
IRS opened the application process for being certified as a CPEO.
Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the temporary and proposed
regulations during the 2017 fiscal year, taking into account all
comments received.
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
2017.
Guidance implementing the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 repealed the current procedures governing
audits of partnerships and replaced them with new procedures. Treasury
and the IRS intend to publish regulations implementing these new
procedures. Proposed regulations will provide guidance on electing out
of the new procedures, partner reporting and adjustments, designation
of a partnership representative, imputed underpayments, and requests
for administrative adjustments.
Guidance on User Fees. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish
regulations charging (or updating) user fees for certain applications
made by individuals to the IRS, including for an installment agreement,
an offer in compromise, and a preparer tax identification number, as
well as to take
[[Page 94632]]
the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent.
Guidance under the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015.
On December 25, 2015, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Tax
Hikes Act (PATH Act). The Path Act made changes to numerous provisions
of the Code. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish guidance
implementing these changes, including guidance on the issuance of
individual taxpayer identifying numbers, an update to the revenue
procedure on acceptance agents, proposed regulations on the use of
truncated taxpayer identification numbers on the Form W-2, and
regulations under sections 6721 and 6722 regarding de minimis errors on
information returns.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
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 most important significant regulatory actions are identified
and discussed in the following chart. These actions are identified as
helping to implement VA's policies and priorities, and embody the core
of VA's regulatory priorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Summary of rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2900-AP66................ Diseases Associated The Department of
With Exposure to Veterans Affairs (VA)
Contaminated Water proposed to amend its
at Camp Lejeune. adjudication
regulations relating to
presumptive service
connection to add
certain diseases
associated with
contaminants present in
the base water supply
at U.S. Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune (Camp
Lejeune), North
Carolina, from August
1, 1953 to December 31,
1987. The chemical
compounds involved have
been associated by
various scientific
organizations with the
development of certain
diseases. The effect of
this rule would be to
establish that
veterans, former
reservists, and former
National Guard members,
who served at Camp
Lejeune during this
period, and who have
been diagnosed with any
of nine associated
diseases, are presumed
to have a service-
connected disability
for purposes of
entitlement to VA
benefits. In addition,
VA proposed
establishing a
presumption that these
individuals were
disabled during the
relevant period of
service, thus
establishing active
military service for
benefit purposes. Under
this presumption,
affected former
reservists and National
Guard members would
have veteran status for
purposes of entitlement
to some VA benefits.
The proposal would
implement a decision by
the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs that
service connection on a
presumptive basis is
warranted for claimants
who served at Camp
Lejeune and later
develop certain
diseases. VA plans to
finalize this proposal
after considering
public comments.
2900-AP54................ VA Homeless The Department of
Providers Grant Veterans Affairs (VA)
and Per Diem is proposing to amend
Program. its regulations
concerning the VA
Homeless Providers
Grant and Per Diem
Program (GPD). These
amendments would
provide GPD with
increased flexibility
to (1) respond to the
changing needs of
homeless veterans; (2)
repurpose existing and
future funds more
efficiently; and (3)
allow grant providers
the ability to add,
modify, or eliminate
components of funded
programs. We are
proposing these
amendments to better
serve our homeless
veteran population and
the grantees who serve
them.
2900-AO53................ Fiduciary VA proposed to amend its
Activities. fiduciary program
regulations, which
govern the oversight of
beneficiaries who,
because of injury,
disease, the
infirmities of advanced
age, or minority, are
unable to manage their
VA benefits and the
appointment and
oversight of
fiduciaries for these
vulnerable
beneficiaries. The
proposed amendments
would update and
reorganize regulations
consistent with current
law, VA policies and
procedures, and VA's
reorganization of its
fiduciary activities.
They would also clarify
the rights of
beneficiaries in the
program and the roles
of VA and fiduciaries
in ensuring that VA
benefits are managed in
the best interest of
beneficiaries and their
dependents.
[[Page 94633]]
2900-AP72................ Veterans Employment The Department of
Pay for Success Veterans Affairs (VA)
Program. established a grant
program (Veterans
Employment Pay for
Success (VEPFS)) under
the authority of 38
U.S.C. 3119 to award
grants to eligible
entities to fund
projects that are
successful in
accomplishing
employment
rehabilitation for
Veterans with service-
connected disabilities.
VA will award grants on
the basis of an
eligible entity's
proposed use of a Pay
for Success (PFS)
strategy to achieve
goals. This interim
final rule established
regulations for
awarding a VEPFS grant,
including the general
process for awarding
the grant, criteria and
parameters for
evaluating grant
applications,
priorities related to
the award of a grant,
and general
requirements and
guidance for
administering a VEPFS
grant program.
2900-AP35................ Tiered Pharmacy The Department of
Copayments for Veterans Affairs (VA)
Medications. proposes to amend its
regulations concerning
copayments charged to
certain veterans for
medication required on
an outpatient basis to
treat nonservice-
connected conditions.
This rulemaking would
establish three classes
of medications for
copayment purposes,
identified as Tier 1,
Tier 2, and Tier 3.
These tiers would
distinguish in part
based on whether the
medications are
available from multiple
sources or a single
source, with some
exceptions. Copayment
amounts would be fixed,
and would be dependent
upon the class of
medication. For most
veterans these
copayment amounts would
result in lower out-of-
pocket costs, thereby
encouraging greater
adherence to prescribed
medications and
reducing the risk of
fragmented care that
results when veterans
use multiple pharmacies
to fill their
prescriptions.
2900-AP57................ Repayment by VA of The Department of
Educational Loans Veterans Affairs (VA)
for Certain has added to its
Psychiatrists medical regulations a
(Clay Hunt Act). program for the
repayment of
educational loans for
certain psychiatrists
who agree to a period
of obligated service
with VA. This program
is intended to increase
the pool of qualified
VA psychiatrists and
increase veterans'
access to mental health
care.
2900-AO88................ Per Diem Paid to The Department of
States for Care of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Eligible Veterans proposed to reorganize,
in State Homes. update (based on
revisions to statutory
authority), and clarify
its regulations that
govern paying per diem
to State homes
providing nursing home
and adult day health
care to eligible
veterans. The
reorganization will
improve consistency and
clarity throughout
these State home
programs. We believe
that these proposed
regulations will
clarify current law and
policy, which should
improve and simplify
the payment of per diem
to State homes, and
encourage participation
in these programs. VA
plans to finalize this
proposal after
considering public
comments.
2900-AP60................ Expanded Access to The Department of
Non-VA Care Veterans Affairs (VA)
Through the revised its medical
Veterans Choice regulations that
Program (VCP). implement section 101
of the Veterans Access,
Choice, and
Accountability Act of
2014 (hereafter
referred to as ``the
Choice Act''), which
requires VA to
establish a program to
furnish hospital care
and medical services
through eligible non-VA
health care providers
to eligible veterans
who either cannot be
seen within the wait-
time goals of the
Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) or
who qualify based on
their place of
residence (hereafter
referred to as ``the
Veterans Choice
Program'' or ``the
Program''). These
regulatory revisions
are required by the
most recent amendments
to the Choice Act made
by the Construction
Authorization and
Choice Improvement Act
of 2014, and by the
Surface Transportation
and Veterans Health
Care Choice Improvement
Act of 2015. The
Construction
Authorization and
Choice Improvement Act
of 2014 amended the
Choice Act to define
additional criteria
that VA may use to
determine that a
veteran's travel to a
VA medical facility is
an ``unusual or
excessive burden,'' and
the Surface
Transportation and
Veterans Health Care
Choice Improvement Act
of 2015 amended the
Choice Act to cover all
veterans enrolled in
the VA health care
system, remove the 60-
day limit on an episode
of care, modify the
wait-time and 40-mile
distance eligibility
criteria, and expand
provider eligibility
based on criteria as
determined by VA.
2900-AP44................ Advanced Practice The Department of
Registered Nurses. Veterans Affairs (VA)
proposed to amend its
medical regulations to
permit full practice
authority of all VA
advanced practice
registered nurses
(APRNs) when they are
acting within the scope
of their VA employment.
This rulemaking would
increase veterans'
access to VA health
care by expanding the
pool of qualified
health care
professionals who are
authorized to provide
primary health care and
other related health
care services to the
full extent of their
education, training,
and certification,
without the clinical
supervision of
physicians. This rule
would permit VA to use
its health care
resources more
effectively and in a
manner that is
consistent with the
role of APRNs in the
non-VA health care
sector, while
maintaining the patient-
centered, safe, high-
quality health care
that veterans receive
from VA. VA will
finalize its proposal
after considering
public comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Consistent with guidance from section 6 of Executive Order 13563,
VA identifies rules that are to be ``modified, streamlined, expanded,
or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more
effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''
In addition, consistent with Executive Order 13610, initiatives that
are discussed in those plans are identified below.
[[Page 94634]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduce burdens on
RIN Title small businesses Summary of rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple RINs.................. Revise and No............................. VA is proposing to amend
Streamline VA VA Acquisition
Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) as
Regulation to part of a project to
Adhere to Federal update the VAAR. Under
Acquisition. this initiative all
parts of the regulation
are being reviewed and
updated in phased
increments to
incorporate any new
regulations or policies
and to remove any
procedural guidance
that is internal to VA.
This project aims to
streamline the VAAR to
implement and
supplement the Federal
Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) only when
required, and to
eliminate internal
agency guidance in
keeping with the FAR
principles concerning
agency acquisition
regulations.
2900-AO53...................... Fiduciary Activities No............................. VA proposes to amend its
fiduciary program
regulations, which
govern the oversight of
beneficiaries who,
because of injury,
disease, the
infirmities of advanced
age, or minority, are
unable to manage their
VA benefits, and the
appointment and
oversight of
fiduciaries for these
vulnerable
beneficiaries. The
proposed amendments
would update and
reorganize regulations
consistent with current
law, VA policies and
procedures, and VA's
reorganization of its
fiduciary activities.
They would also clarify
the rights of
beneficiaries in the
program and the roles
of VA and fiduciaries
in ensuring that VA
benefits are managed in
the best interest of
beneficiaries and their
dependents.
Multiple RINs.................. VA Schedule for No............................. VA is updating its
Rating Disabilities Schedule for Rating
(With Specific Body Disabilities (VASRD, or
System). Rating Schedule) to
better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD,
which is part 4 of
title 38, Code of
Federal Regulations,
governs how claims
processors evaluate the
severity of
disabilities. While VA
has routinely updated
parts of the VASRD,
this proposal is the
first time VA is
working to update the
entire VASRD since
1945. In 2009, a formal
project management plan
was created to outline
how to update the
VASRD. A working group
of specialized
physicians (VA and non-
VA), stakeholders, and
claims processors
reviews each of the 15
body systems and
provides analysis to
assist VA in developing
updates. The public has
60 days to provide VA
with comments. VA will
introduce the proposed
updates to the VASRD
incrementally and is
committed to an update
of the entire VASRD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA
Proposed Rule Stage
101. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: the Genitourinary Diseases and
Conditions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.115; 38 CFR 4.115(a); 38 CFR 4.115(b).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) that
addresses the genitourinary system. The purpose of this change is to
update current medical terminology, incorporate medical advances that
have occurred since the last review, and provide well-defined criteria
in accordance with actual, standard medical clinical practice. The
proposed rule reflects the most up-to-date medical knowledge and
clinical practice of nephrology and urology specialties, as well as
comments from subject matter experts and the public garnered during a
public forum held January 27-28, 2011.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Jerry Hersh, Medical Officer, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 461-9487, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP16
[[Page 94635]]
VA
102. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001, Parts
803, 814, 822)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 38 U.S.C. 501; 41 U.S.C.
1121(c)(3); . . .
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 802; 48 CFR 803; 48 CFR 812; 48
CFR 814; 48 CFR 822; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304; . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects
inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it
provides VA acquisition regulations necessary to implement FAR policies
and procedures within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures,
solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to
satisfy VA mission needs. This proposed rule revises VAAR parts 803,
814, and 822. Other revisions to the entirety of the affected parts are
planned in later proposed rules when those parts are revised in full.
Statement of Need: The needed changes include proposing to remove
an information collection burden from the VAAR because it is based on
an outdated practice in providing bid envelopes. We propose to add
additional definitions to ensure a common understanding and meaning of
terms related to debarment and suspensions in the department. We are
proposing to update the policy governing improper business practices
and personal conflicts of interests and to clarify the language
regarding the prohibition of contractors from making reference in its
commercial advertising regarding VA contracts to avoid implying that
the Government approves or endorses products or services.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C.
1121(c)(3), 48 CFR 301-1.304.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP50
VA
103. VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 2001; 38 U.S.C. 2011; 38
U.S.C. 2012; 38 U.S.C. 2061; 38 U.S.C. 2064
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 61.1; 38 CFR 61.5; 38 CFR 61.33; 38 CFR 61.61.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and
Per Diem Program (GPD). These amendments would provide GPD with
increased flexibility to: (1) Respond to the changing needs of homeless
veterans; (2) repurpose existing and future funds more efficiently; and
(3) allow grant providers the ability to add, modify, or eliminate
components of funded programs. We are proposing these amendments to
better serve our homeless veteran population and the grantees who serve
them.
Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes
to amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and
Per Diem Program (GPD) to better serve our homeless veteran population
and the grantees who serve them. For example, VA is proposing to
increase flexibility for transitioning homeless veterans into permanent
housing, such as by recognizing ``bridge housing'', a short-term
housing option for veterans who have accepted a permanent housing
placement that is not immediately available.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2001, 2011, 2012, 2061 and
2064.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Guy A. Liedke, Program Specialist, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Grant and Per Diem Field Office, 810 Vermont Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 877 332-0334, Fax: 813 979-3569,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP54
VA
104. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V005, Parts
812, 813)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 1.3; 48 CFR 812; 48 CFR 813; 48 CFR 852.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) as part of a project to
update the VAAR. Under this initiative, all parts of the regulation are
being reviewed and updated in phased increments to incorporate any new
regulations or policies and to remove any procedural guidance that is
internal to the VA. This project aims to streamline the VAAR to
implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) only
when required, and to eliminate internal agency guidance in keeping
with the FAR principles concerning agency acquisition regulations.
Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
proposing to revise the VAAR to add new policy or regulatory
requirements and to remove any guidance that is applicable only to VA's
internal operating processes or procedures. FAR 1.302, Limitations,
requires that agency acquisition regulations shall be limited only to
those necessary to implement the FAR policies and procedures within the
agency and to any additional information needed to supplement the FAR
to satisfy the specific needs of the agency. The needed changes include
proposing to delete paragraphs when adequately addressed in the FAR,
add new subsections to clarify that FAR applies to specific parts, and
to remove sections such as the section that deals with internal
procedures for obtaining a waiver to tailor solicitations, to be
inconsistent with customary commercial practice.
Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c).
[[Page 94636]]
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP58
VA
105. Diseases Associated With Exposure to Contaminants in the Water
Supply at Camp Lejeune
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a)
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 3.307; 38 CFR 3.309.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has proposed to
amend its adjudication regulations relating to presumptive service
connection to add certain diseases associated with contaminants present
in the base water supply at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp
Lejeune), North Carolina, from August 1, 1953 to December 31, 1987. The
chemical compounds involved have been associated by various scientific
organizations with the development of certain diseases. The proposed
rule would establish that veterans, former reservists, and former
National Guard members, who served at Camp Lejeune during this period,
and who have been diagnosed with any of nine associated diseases, are
presumed to have a service-connected disability for purposes of
entitlement to VA benefits. In addition, VA would establish a
presumption that these individuals were disabled during the relevant
period of service, thus establishing active military service for
benefit purposes. Under this presumption, affected former reservists
and National Guard members have veteran status for purposes of
entitlement to some VA benefits. This amendment implements a decision
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that service connection on a
presumptive basis is warranted for claimants who served at Camp Lejeune
and later develop certain diseases. VA plans to finalize this proposal
after considering public comments.
Statement of Need: VA is responding to health concerns based on
potentially service-connected exposure to contaminants in the drinking
water at Camp Lejeune. Environmental Protection Agency standards came
out in the early 1980s. In 1982, the Marine Corps discovered elevated
levels of the VOCs in two of the eight on-base water supply systems at
Camp Lejeune. These water systems served housing, administrative, and
recreational facilities, as well as the base hospital.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501(a).
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/09/16 81 FR 62419
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/11/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Eric Mandle, Policy Analyst, Regulations Staff
(211D), Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 461-9694, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP66
VA
106. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles VAAR Case 2014-V004 (Parts
811, 832)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 48 CFR 1.3
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 811; 48 CFR 832; 48 CFR 852.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects
inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it
provides VA acquisition regulations necessary to implement FAR policies
and procedures within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures,
solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to
satisfy VA mission needs.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes that are needed
are removing a significant portion of subpart 811.1, Selecting and
Developing Requirements Documents, as it includes information that is
redundant to the FAR. In addition, we propose to add a new section to
implement the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Memorandum M-11-
32, dated September 14, 2011, and to encourage making payments to small
business contractors within 15 days of receipt of invoice.
Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR 1.3.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP81
VA
107. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002,
Parts 816, 828)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 48 CFR 1.3
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 816; 48 CFR 828; 48 CFR 852.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects
[[Page 94637]]
inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it
provides VAARs necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures
within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures, solicitation
provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to satisfy VA
mission needs. This proposed rule revises VAAR parts 816 and 828, and
as a result of these changes revises small portions of VAAR part 852
(Solicitation provisions and contract clauses), as appropriate.
Statement of Need: The proposed needed changes include adding a
section on consignment agreements which defines and describes the
consignment agreement acquisition method used for satisfying the need
for immediate and on-going requirements. We propose to remove the
section, Letters of Availability, as that procurement method is no
longer in use in VA. Also, we propose to revise the section, Insurance
Under Fixed-Price Contracts, to clarify the provision prescription for
when insurance is required for solicitations when utilizing term or
continuing fixed priced contracts for ambulance, automobile and
aircraft service.
Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR 1.3.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP82
VA
Final Rule Stage
108. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Hematologic and Lymphatic
Systems
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.117.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating
Schedule) that addresses the hematologic and lymphatic systems. The
intended effect of this change is to incorporate medical advances that
have occurred since the last review, update medical terminology, add
medical conditions not currently in the Rating Schedule, and refine
criteria for further clarity and ease of rater application.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/06/15 80 FR 46888
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/05/15
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AO19
VA
109. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Endocrine System
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.119.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to
revise the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating
Schedule) that addresses the endocrine system. The intended effect of
this change is to update medical terminology, add medical conditions
not currently in the Rating Schedule, revise the criteria to reflect
medical advances since the last revision in 1996, and clarify the
criteria.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/08/15 80 FR 39011
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/08/15
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email:
[email protected].
[[Page 94638]]
RIN: 2900-AO44
VA
110. Fiduciary Activities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 55; 38 U.S.C. 61; 38
U.S.C. 5502; 38 U.S.C. 5506-5510; 38 U.S.C. 6101; 38 U.S.C. 6106-6108;
38 U.S.C. 512; 38 U.S.C. 5301; 38 U.S.C. 5711; 38 U.S.C. 5504
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 13.10 to 13.600; 38 CFR 3.850 to 3.857; 38 CFR
3.353; 38 CFR 3.401, 3.403; 38 CFR 3.452 ; 38 CFR 3.500, 3.501.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend
its fiduciary program regulations, which govern the oversight of
beneficiaries who, because of injury, disease, the infirmities of
advanced age, or minority, are unable to manage their VA benefits and
the appointment and oversight of fiduciaries for these vulnerable
beneficiaries. The proposed amendments would update and reorganize
regulations consistent with current law, VA policies and procedures,
and VA's reorganization of its fiduciary activities. They would also
clarify the rights of beneficiaries in the program and the roles of VA
and fiduciaries in ensuring that VA benefits are managed in the best
interest of beneficiaries and their dependents.
Statement of Need: This final rule would amend VA fiduciary
regulations, 38 CFR part 13, and removes 3.850 through 3.857 pertaining
to fiduciary matters, from part 3. This amendment would implement the
statutory provisions of 38 U.S.C. 55 and 61, reflect current VA
policies, and prescribe the rights of beneficiaries and the roles of VA
and fiduciaries in the fiduciary program.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. chapters 55 and 61.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/03/14 79 FR 430
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/04/14
Final Action........................ 03/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Savitri Persaud, Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary
Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 632-8863, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AO53
VA
111. Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State
Homes
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501 and 1710; 38 U.S.C. 1741 to
1743; 38 U.S.C. 1745; 38 U.S.C. 7104 and 7105; 42 U.S.C. 1395(cc)
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 51.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to
reorganize, update (based on revisions to statutory authority), and
clarify its regulations that govern paying per diem to State homes
providing nursing home and adult day health care to eligible veterans.
The reorganization will improve consistency and clarity throughout
these State home programs. We believe that these proposed regulations
will clarify current law and policy, which should improve and simplify
the payment of per diem to State homes, and encourage participation in
these programs. VA plans to finalize this proposal after considering
public comments.
Statement of Need: The proposed reorganization would improve
consistency and clarity throughout these State home programs.
Currently, we require States to operate these programs exclusively
using a medical supervision model. We expect that these liberalizing
changes will result in an increase in the number of States that have
adult day health care programs. Moreover, we proposed to eliminate the
regulations governing per diem for State home hospitals because there
are no longer any State home hospitals.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741 to 1743,
1745, 7104, 7105, and 42 U.S.C. 1395(cc).
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/17/15 80 FR 34793
NPRM; Correction and Clarification.. 06/24/15 80 FR 36305
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/17/15
Final Action........................ 05/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and
Extended Care Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-6750.
RIN: 2900-AO88
VA
112. Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.150.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating
schedule) that addresses dental and oral conditions. The purpose of
these changes is to incorporate medical advances that have occurred
since the last review, update current medical terminology, and provide
clear evaluation criteria for application of this portion of the rating
schedule. The proposed rule reflects advances in medical knowledge,
recommendations from the Dental and Oral Conditions Work Group (``Work
Group''), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), and comments from experts and the public gathered
as part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to
the dental and oral conditions section of the VASRD, was held on
January 25-26, 2011.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public
[[Page 94639]]
has 60 days to provide VA with comments. VA will introduce the proposed
updates to the VASRD incrementally and is committed to an update of the
entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/28/15 80 FR 44913
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/28/15
Final Action........................ 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP08
VA
113. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Gynecological Conditions and
Disorders of the Breast
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.116.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating
schedule) that addresses gynecological conditions and disorders of the
breast. The purpose of these changes is to incorporate medical advances
that have occurred since the last review, update current medical
terminology, and provide clear evaluation criteria. The proposed rule
reflects advances in medical knowledge, recommendations from the
Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast Work Group (``Work
Group''), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), and comments from experts and the public gathered
as part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to
the gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast section of the
VASRD, was held on January 24, 2012.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/27/15 80 FR 10637
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/28/15
Final Action........................ 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP13
VA
114. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Organs of Special Sense and
Schedule of Ratings--Eye
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.77; 38 CFR 4.78; 38 CFR 4.79.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating
schedule) that addresses the organs of special sense and schedule of
ratings--eye. The purpose of these changes is to incorporate medical
advances that have occurred since the last review, update current
medical terminology, and provide clear evaluation criteria. The
proposed rule reflects advances in medical knowledge, recommendations
from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and comments from subject
matter experts and the public garnered as part of a public forum. The
public forum, focusing on revisions to the organs of special sense and
schedule of ratings for eye disabilities, was held on January 19-20,
2012.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/09/15 80 FR 32513
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/10/15
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Gary Reynolds, Medical Officer, Department of
Veterans
[[Page 94640]]
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-
9698, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP14
VA
115. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin Conditions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.118.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or Rating
Schedule) that addresses skin conditions. The purpose of these changes
is to incorporate medical advances that have occurred since the last
review, update current medical terminology, and provide clear
evaluation criteria. The proposed rule reflects advances in medical
knowledge, recommendations from the Skin Disorders Work Group (Work
Group), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the
Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health
Administration, and comments from experts and the public gathered as
part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to the
skin conditions section of the VASRD, was held in January 2012.
Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments.
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/12/16 81 FR 53353
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/11/16
Final Action........................ 07/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Gary Reynolds, Medical Officer, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 461-9698, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP27
VA
116. Tiered Pharmacy Copayments for Medications
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.110.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as a final
rule, with changes, a proposal to amend its regulations concerning
copayments charged to certain veterans for medication required on an
outpatient basis to treat nonservice-connected conditions. This
rulemaking establishes three classes of medications for copayment
purposes, identified as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. These tiers are
distinguished in part based on whether the medications are available
from multiple sources or a single source, with some exceptions.
Copayment amounts are fixed and would vary depending upon the class of
medication. The following medication copayment amounts are applicable
on the effective date of this final rule: $5 for a 30-day or less
supply of a Tier 1 medication, $8 for a 30-day or less supply of a Tier
2 medication, and $11 for a 30-day or less supply of a Tier 3
medication.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking will result in lower out-of-
pocket costs for most veterans, thereby encouraging greater adherence
to prescribed medications and reducing the risk of fragmented care that
results when veterans use multiple pharmacies to fill their
prescriptions.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/05/16 81 FR 196
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/07/16
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kristin Cunningham, Chief, Business Office (16),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-1599, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP35
VA
117. Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7301; 38 U.S.C. 7304; 38 U.S.C. 7402; 38
U.S.C. 7403; 38 U.S.C. 501; . . .
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.415.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend
its medical regulations to permit full practice authority of all VA
advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) when they are acting within
the scope of their VA employment. This rulemaking would increase
veterans' access to VA health care by expanding the pool of qualified
health care professionals who are authorized to provide primary health
care and other related health care services to the full extent of their
education, training, and certification, without the clinical
supervision of physicians. This rule would permit VA to use its health
care resources more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with
the role of APRNs in the non-VA health care sector, while maintaining
the patient-centered, safe, high-quality health care that veterans
receive from VA.
Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
proposing to amend its medical regulations to remove barriers to the
full practice authority of all VA advanced practice registered nurses
(APRNs) when they are acting within the scope of their VA employment.
This rulemaking would increase veterans' access to VA health care by
expanding the pool of qualified health care professionals who are fully
authorized to provide comprehensive primary health care and other
related
[[Page 94641]]
health care services to veterans. This rule would permit VA to use its
health care resources more effectively and in a manner that is
consistent with the non-VA health care sector, while maintaining the
patient-centered, safe, high quality health care that veterans receive
from VA.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402 and 7403.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/25/16 81 FR 33155
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/25/16
Final Action........................ 01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: David J. Shulkin, Under Secretary for Health,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20420, Phone: 202 461-7000.
RIN: 2900-AP44
VA
118. Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through The Veterans Choice Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Sec. 101 Pub. L. 113-146, 128 stat. 1754; sec.
4005 Pub. L. 114-41, 129 stat. 443; 38 U.S.C. 501
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.1505; 38 CFR 17.1510; 38 CFR 17.1525; 38
CFR 17.1530.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its
medical regulations that implement section 101 of the Veterans Access,
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (hereafter referred to as ``the
Choice Act''), which requires VA to establish a program to furnish
hospital care and medical services through eligible non-VA health care
providers to eligible veterans who either cannot be seen within the
wait-time goals of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or who
qualify based on their place of residence (hereafter referred to as the
``Veterans Choice Program'' or ``the Program''). These regulatory
revisions are required by the most recent amendments to the Choice Act
made by the Construction Authorization and Choice Improvement Act of
2014, and by the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice
Improvement Act of 2015.
Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends
its medical regulations concerning its authority for eligible veterans
to receive care from non-VA entities and providers as required by
certain new laws. The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act
of 2014 (the Choice Act) directs VA to establish a program to furnish
hospital care and medical services through non-VA care health care
providers. The Construction Authorization and Choice Improvement Act
defined additional criteria to determine that a veteran's travel to a
VA medical facility is an unusual or excessive burden, and the Surface
Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act added
further requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: Pub. L. 113-146, section 101 (38 U.S.C.
1701 note); Pub. L. 114-19, section 3(a)(2); Pub. L. 114-41, section
4005.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/01/15 80 FR 74991
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 12/01/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 03/30/16
End.
Interim Final Rule; Correcting 04/25/16 81 FR 24026
Amendment.
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kristin Cunningham, Chief, Business Office (16),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-1599, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP60
VA
119. Veterans Employment Pay For Success Grant Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 3119; 38 U.S.C. 501(a),
ch 31; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), ch 18
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 21.440 to 21.449.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established a
grant program (Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS)) under the
authority of 38 U.S.C. 3119 to award grants to eligible entities to
fund projects that are successful in accomplishing employment
rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. VA
will award grants on the basis of an eligible entity's proposed use of
a Pay for Success (PFS) strategy to achieve goals. This interim final
rule established regulations for awarding a VEPFS grant, including the
general process for awarding the grant, criteria and parameters for
evaluating grant applications, priorities related to the award of a
grant, and general requirements and guidance for administering a VEPFS
grant program.
Statement of Need: There is a need to find new, innovative methods
for rehabilitating Veterans with compensable service-connected
disabilities who qualify for benefits under VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) program so that they become
employable and are ultimately able to obtain and maintain suitable
employment. Through Pay For Success (PFS) grant programs, which may
serve various Veteran populations including those Veterans with
noncompensable service-connected disabilities who do not qualify for
VR&E benefits, we hope to obtain information to establish new,
innovative methods for rehabilitating Veterans who qualify for VR&E
benefits. PFS offers an economical mechanism, which can save taxpayers'
money, for exploring the resources and techniques that are available
for rehabilitating Veterans with service-connected disabilities with
regard to employment.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3119.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 08/10/16 81 FR 52770
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/10/16
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 10/11/16
End.
Final Action........................ 03/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Patrick Littlefield, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 1800 G
[[Page 94642]]
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202 256-7176, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP72
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
FY 2017 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 five rulemaking priorities for the Access
Board in FY 2017: (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; (D) Accessibility
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; and
(E) Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines. 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 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
[[Page 94643]]
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 (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
[[Page 94644]]
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 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.
E. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for
Passenger Vessels (RIN: 3014-AA11)
The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure
that newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation
and U.S. Department of Justice are expected to adopt the guidelines as
enforceable standards in separate rulemakings for the construction and
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.
E.1. Statement of Need: Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for the construction and
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the law to ensure that the
vessels are readily accessible to
[[Page 94645]]
and usable by individuals with disabilities (42 U.S.C. 12204).
E.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.)
Titles II and III of the ADA require the DOT and DOJ to issue
accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of
passenger vessels covered by the law that are consistent with the
guidelines issued by the Access Board. (See 42 U.S.C. 12134(c),
12149(b), 12186(c).) The DOT has reserved a subpart in its ADA
regulations for accessibility standards for passenger vessels in
anticipation of the Access Board issuing these guidelines. (See 49 CFR
part 39, subpart E.) Once DOT and DOJ issue accessibility standards for
the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the
ADA, vessel owners and operators are then required to comply with the
standards.
E.3. Alternatives: In developing the proposed accessibility
guidelines, the Access Board has received and considered extensive
input from passenger vessel owners and operators, individuals with
disabilities, and other interested parties for more than a decade. The
Access Board convened an advisory committee comprised of passenger
vessel industry trade groups, passenger vessel owners and operators,
disability advocacy groups, and state and local government agencies to
advise how to develop the accessibility guidelines. The committee
submitted its report to the Access Board in 2000. In addition, over the
years, the Access Board issued an ANPRM and three versions of draft
accessibility guidelines and conducted in-depth case studies on various
passenger vessels. The Access Board solicited and analyzed public
comments on these documents in developing the proposed guidelines and
regulatory impact analysis. All the published documents together with
public comments are available at: http://www.access-board.gov.
E.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed guidelines would
address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation,
and communication barriers encountered by individuals with disabilities
on passenger vessels. The estimated compliance costs for certain types
of vessels include: (1) The incremental impact of constructing a vessel
in compliance with the guidelines; and (2) any additional costs
attributable to the operation and maintenance of accessible features.
For certain large cruise ships, the compliance costs would include loss
of guest rooms and gross revenues attributed to a proposed requirement
for a minimum number of guest rooms that provide mobility features. The
proposed guidelines would significantly benefit individuals with
disabilities by affording them equal opportunity to travel on passenger
vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and
leisure. Other benefits, which are difficult to quantify, include
equity, human dignity, and fairness values.
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,
tribal, 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' 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 40 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.
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where
appropriate and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue
to develop standards, as appropriate, for both mobile and stationary
sources, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants,
including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and
toxics.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 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. On February 9, 2016, the
Supreme Court stayed implementation of these standards and guidelines
pending judicial review. The Court's decision was not on the merits of
the rules.
For the states that choose to continue to work to cut carbon
pollution from power plants and seek the Agency's guidance and
assistance, EPA will continue to provide tools and support, including
issuing Model Trading Rules as a tool for states to use in developing
plans that achieve carbon reductions. These Model Trading Rules were
proposed in July 2015, and will be finalized in late 2016. The Clean
Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), which was
[[Page 94646]]
proposed in 2016, will be finalized in 2017.
Renewable Fuels. The Clean Air Act requires 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. In May of 2016, EPA issued a proposal to set the
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2017 and the
BBD standard for 2018. EPA will finalize that rule in late 2016. EPA
also intends to propose RFS volume requirements for 2018 and the 2019
BBD standard in May of 2017. Also in 2016, EPA proposed to make
numerous changes to promote the production of renewable fuels and
clarify certain requirements under the RFS program. When finalized in
early 2017, that action will provide substantial additional flexibility
for ethanol flex fuel producers that accommodate current market
realities while continuing to ensure that flex fuel quality is
consistent with controlling pollution when used in flexible fuel
vehicles.
Implementing Air Quality Standards. The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone were strengthened in 2015, and EPA
is developing an implementation rule to help states implement those
standards. This rule, which will also cover ozone classifications, will
be proposed late in 2016 and finalized in 2017.
Emissions from Aircraft. In 2017, EPA plans to issue a proposed
finding, under Clean Air Act section 231, to determine whether lead
emissions from aircraft operating on leaded fuel cause or contribute to
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.
Radiation Protection. In the fall of 2016, EPA will issue final
rules to protect public health, safety and the environment from
radiological hazards associated with uranium processing. The first of
these rules, under Clean Air Act section 112, establishes standards or
management practices to limit air emissions of radon from uranium
byproduct material or tailings. The second rule, under the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act, establishes groundwater restoration and
monitoring requirements for uranium in-situ recovery, which is now the
dominant form of uranium recovery in the United States.
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Despite considerable progress, America's waters remain at risk.
Water quality protection programs face complex challenges: An aging
national water infrastructure, widespread nutrient pollution,
stormwater runoff and threats to drinking water safety. These
challenges require both traditional and innovative strategies.
Lead and Copper NPDWR Revisions (LCR). The Lead and Copper Rule,
promulgated in 1991, has resulted in substantial reductions in lead in
drinking water. This critically important rule, however, is now 25
years old and is in need of substantive revisions to strengthen the
rule's protections for public health. EPA has conducted extensive
engagement with state, tribal and local government representatives,
stakeholder groups and the public to obtain input to inform revisions
to the LCR. Most recently, EPA received comprehensive recommendations
from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and other
concerned stakeholders on potential steps to strengthen the LCR.
Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects. EPA plans to
issue an interim final rule that establishes the guidelines for a new
credit assistance program for water infrastructure projects and the
process by which EPA will administer such credit assistance. The rule
will implement a new program authorized under the Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA authorizes EPA to
provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water
infrastructure projects. The interim final rule primarily clarifies
statutory language and establishes approaches to specific procedural
issues left to EPA's discretion. Once projects are selected by the EPA
Administrator, individual credit agreements will be developed through
negotiations between the project sponsors and EPA.
Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations.
EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
requesting public comment on the establishment of baseline water
quality standards under the Clean Water Act for waters on Indian
reservations that currently do not have EPA-approved WQS in place to
protect water quality. The ANPRM provides information on EPA's current
thinking and is a way to get specific and clear guidance from the full
range of tribal governments and stakeholders. EPA will consider
comments received on this ANPRM prior to determining whether to develop
a proposed rule on this topic. This ANPRM effort is one of several
initiatives the EPA is undertaking to improve how we work with tribes
to ensure that they have access to clean and safe waters.
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
EPA's regulatory program recognizes the progress in environmental
protection and incorporates new technologies and approaches that allow
us to provide for an environmentally sustainable future more
efficiently and effectively.
CERCLA Section 108(b)--Hardrock 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 hardrock 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
hardrock mining and mineral processing facilities.) EPA intends for
these regulations to help ensure that businesses make financial
arrangements to address risks from hazardous substances at their sites,
and to 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 (EO 13650 or the EO). This Executive Order 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 Executive
order 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
[[Page 94647]]
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
(3) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an
effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
Goal 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 2017, the Agency will
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and
highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Implementation. Enacted on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended TSCA with immediate
effect. The Agency is working aggressively to carry out the
requirements of the new law. Among other things, EPA is now required to
evaluate existing chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks
they pose--including risks to vulnerable groups like children and the
elderly, and to workers who use chemicals daily as part of their jobs--
and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks that are found.
Based on efforts initiated prior to the enactment of the new law, EPA
plans to propose risk management actions under TSCA section 6 related
to several specific uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene
chloride, and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) to protect the human health and
the environment from the risks presented by those chemicals.
In addition, EPA is now required to systematically prioritize and
evaluate chemicals on a specific and enforceable schedule. Within a few
years, EPA's chemicals program will have to assess at least 20
chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one
is completed. The new law provides a consistent source of funding for
EPA to carry out its new responsibilities. EPA will now be able to
collect up to $25 million a year in user fees from chemical
manufacturers and processers, supplemented by Congressional budgeting,
to pay for these improvements. The Agency initiated stakeholder
discussions in August 2016 and is developing regulations that will
identify how EPA will carry out the various provisions of the new law.
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, with an initial
emphasis on PCB-containing fluorescent ballasts in schools and
daycares.
Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort
to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency is also
developing final revisions to the existing regulation concerning the
certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides. This
rulemaking 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 rule 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 rule 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
[[Page 94648]]
important insects and support pesticide registration decisions under
FIFRA.
Goal 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.
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/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking title Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Performance Standards for 2060-AP06
Grain Elevators--Amendments.
Treatment of Data Influenced by 2060-AS02
Exceptional Events--Rule Revisions.
Public Notice Provisions in CAA 2060-AS59
Permitting Programs.
Regional Haze Regulations--Revision to 2060-AS55
SIP Submission Date and Requirements
for Progress Reports.
Title V Petitions Process Improvement 2060-AS61
Rulemaking.
National Primary Drinking Water 2040-AF15
Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
National Pollutant Discharge 2040-AF25
Elimination System (NPDES) Application
and Program Updates Rule.
National Primary Drinking Water 2040-AF29
Regulations: Group Regulation of
Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compound
(VOCs).
Management Standards for Hazardous 2050-AG39
Waste Pharmaceuticals.
Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions 2050-AG77
Rule.
Improvements to the Hazardous Waste 2050-AG70
Generator Regulatory Program (Parts
261-265).
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 2070-AJ20
Applicators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016--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%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention 2014 $274.7 $274.7 $158.3 $158.3 $116.4 $116.4
Regulations Under Clean Air Act.............................
Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium 2014 Not Not 6.6 13.4 Not Not
Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192): Revisions \1\................... Monetized Monetized Computed Computed
Technical and Regulatory Support to Develop the NESHAP 2014 Not Not 15.8 17.9 Not Not
Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions for Radon Emissions Monetized Monetized Computed Computed
From Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.250) \2\............
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators........... 2014 20.8 21.2 48.8 48.8 (28.0) (27.6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Estimates \4\.................................. 2014 295.5 295.9 229.6 238.4 88.4 88.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate = 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention 2014 274.7 274.7 161.0 161.0 113.7 113.7
Regulations Under Clean Air Act.............................
[[Page 94649]]
Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium 2014 Not Not 4.1 8.3 Not Not
Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192): Revisions \1\................... Monetized Monetized Computed Computed
Technical and Regulatory Support to develop the NESHAP 2014 Not Not 15.8 17.9 Not Not
Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions for Radon Emissions Monetized Monetized Computed Computed
From Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.250) \2\............
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators \3\....... 2014 Not Not Not Not Not Not
Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported Reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Estimates \4\.................................. 2014 274.7 274.7 180.9 187.2 113.7 113.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National net benefits for Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192) Revisions were not computed because
most categories of benefits, including health and ecosystem benefits, were not monetized.
\2\ The Economic Impact Analysis for the NESHAP Subpart W Standard does not monetize benefits such as the value of reduced cancer risk, so net benefits
were not computed.
\3\ The Economic Analysis for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators did not estimate annual costs using a 7% discount rate. Using a 7% discount
rate is expected to have little effect on annualized costs as most of the costs recur annually.
\4\ Aggregate Net Benefits are estimated by summing the column of net benefits reported for each discount rate.
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking title Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Responsibility Requirements 2050-AG61
Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for
Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock
Mining Industry.
Modernization of the Accidental Release 2050-AG82
Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air
Act.
Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking 2070-AK11
Under TSCA Section 6(a); Vapor
Degreasing.
N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene 2070-AK07
Chloride; Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); 2070-AK12
Reassessment of Use Authorizations for
PCBs in Small Capacitors in
Fluorescent Light Ballasts in Schools
and Daycares.
National Primary Drinking Water 2040-AF15
Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking title Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene 2070-AK07
Chloride; Rulemaking Under TSCA
Section 6(a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Prerule Stage
120. Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)(B)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 131.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) requesting public comment on the establishment of baseline
water quality standards (WQS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for
waters on Indian reservations that currently do not have EPA-approved
WQS in place to protect water quality. EPA will consider comments
received on this ANPRM prior to determining whether to develop a
proposed rule on this topic. This ANPRM effort is one of several
initiatives the EPA is undertaking that recognize the importance of
protecting waters on which tribes rely.
Statement of Need: Currently, fewer than 50 of over 300 tribes with
[[Page 94650]]
reservations have WQS effective under the CWA. Virtually all of the
reservations with existing coverage have WQS established by tribes that
have obtained treatment in a manner similar to a state (TAS) under CWA
section 518, however, many tribes face obstacles on this pathway to
WQS. The resulting gap in EPA-approved WQS in Indian reservation waters
is not insignificant. Tribal reservations without CWA-effective WQS
account for as much land area and population as the state of North
Dakota. Federal baseline WQS would define water quality goals for
unprotected reservation waters and serve as the foundation for CWA
actions to protect human health and the environment.
Summary of Legal Basis: The CWA establishes the basis for the water
quality standards (WQS) regulation and program. CWA section 303
addresses the development of state and authorized tribal WQS that serve
the CWA objective for waters of the United States. The core components
of WQS are designated uses, water quality criteria that support the
uses, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the
environmental objectives for a water body and water quality criteria
define the conditions sufficient to achieve those environmental
objectives. The antidegradation requirements provide a framework for
maintaining and protecting water quality that has already been
achieved. The CWA creates a partnership between states and authorized
tribes, and EPA, by assigning states and authorized tribes the primary
role of adopting WQS (CWA sections 101(b) and 303), and EPA the
oversight role of reviewing and approving or disapproving state and
authorized tribal WQS (CWA section 303(c)). Absent state or authorized
tribal adoption or submission of new or revised WQS, section
303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA gives EPA the authority to determine that new
or revised WQS are necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. Once
the Administrator makes such a determination, EPA must promptly propose
regulations setting forth new or revised WQS for the waters of the
United States involved, and must then promulgate such WQS, unless a
state or authorized tribe adopts and EPA approves such WQS first.
Alternatives: To Be Determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
Risks: To Be Determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/29/16 81 NFR 66900
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 12/28/16
NPRM................................ To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: http://tcots.epa.gov/oita/tconsultation.nsf/.
Agency Contact: Danielle Anderson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-1631, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF62
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Proposed Rule Stage
121. Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7429 Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This action proposes to make numerous changes to promote
the production of renewable fuels and clarify certain requirements
under the RFS program. This action would propose to allow for
feedstocks partially converted at a facility other than a renewable
fuel production facility to be fully converted at a renewable fuel
production facility into finished renewable fuel. These partially
converted feedstocks are referred to as biointermediate feedstocks.
Further, this action would also propose to add new registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for certain renewable fuel
production facilities using carbon capture and storage (CCS) if the EPA
were to allow CCS as a lifecycle GHG emissions reduction technology in
the context of the RFS program. Additionally, this action also proposes
to require obligated parties to report a breakdown of their gasoline,
diesel, and heating oil production; provide an additional RIN-
generating pathway that is an extension of an existing pathway; and
make numerous technical corrections. Finally, this action would
implement fuel quality specifications for blends containing 16 to 83
volume percent ethanol. This action would provide substantial
additional flexibility for ethanol flex fuel (EFF) producers that
accommodate current market realities while continuing to ensure EFF
quality is consistent with controlling pollution when used in flexible
fuel vehicles.
Statement of Need: This action proposes various changes to our fuel
and renewable fuel regulations to remove barriers to the production and
use of renewable fuels. First, this action would resolve several
outstanding issues and provide clarification on certain Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) requirements. Second, this action would propose to allow
for a feedstock partially converted at one facility (referred to as a
biointermediate) to be fully converted into finished renewable fuel at
another facility. Finally, this action would provide production
flexibilities and carry over gasoline fuel quality standards to
gasoline-ethanol blends containing 16 to 83 volume percent ethanol
(referred to as ethanol flex fuel (EFF)). The increased flexibility
provided by this rule for biointermediates and EFF could result in the
increased production and use of renewable fuels in support of the RFS
program.
Summary of Legal Basis: Statutory authority for this action comes
from Clean Air Act sections 203 to 205, 208, 211, and 301.
Alternatives: This action to proposes to establish fuel quality
standards for EFF that are equivalent to those already in place for
gasoline. Producers would demonstrate compliance based on their ability
to affect fuel quality and certain types of producers would be able to
use natural gasoline as a blendstock to produce EFF. Alternatively, EPA
also considered a simplified approach that would restrict EFF
blendstocks to gasoline, blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs), and
denatured fuel ethanol. EPA is seeking comment on this alternative
approach.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The two main areas where this
proposal would have economic impacts are the proposed provisions for
EFF and gasoline produced at blender pumps, and the proposed provisions
for biointermediates. The proposal would provide significant additional
regulatory flexibility, streamlined compliance provisions, and the
opportunity for increased biofuel production at reduced cost. The cost
savings are anticipated to far outweigh the minor costs imposed for
demonstrating compliance. In most cases, the associated costs would
only apply to those parties that elect to take advantage of the
proposed flexibilities because the potential economic benefits
[[Page 94651]]
outweigh the costs. This proposal contains minor additional
registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that would
apply to some parties in the biofuel production and distribution system
that do not take advantage of the proposed flexibilities as well as
those that do.
Risks: This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment by applicable air quality
standards. This action does not relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the fuel programs and RFS regulations and therefore will
not cause emissions increases from these sources.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing; 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 454310 Fuel Dealers;
221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 424690 Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing;
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: Nick Parsons, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, N19, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4479, Email: [email protected].
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS66
EPA--OAR
122. Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation
Plan Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50 to 51.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule will address a range of implementation
requirements for the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone, including the nonattainment area classification
system, and the timing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions.
It will also discuss and outline relevant guidance on meeting the Clean
Air Act's requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures,
nonattainment new source review, and emission inventories. Other issues
addressed in this proposed rule are the potential revocation of the
2008 ozone NAAQS and anti-backsliding requirements that would apply if
the 2008 NAAQS are revoked. The items covered in this rulemaking have
been covered in similar rulemakings for two prior 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(1997 and 2008).
Statement of Need: This rule is needed to clarify and establish
implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including the
nonattainment area classification system, and those elements that
states must include in their state implementation plans (SIPs) to bring
nonattainment areas into compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS. There is
no court-ordered deadline for this final rule. However, the CAA
requires that EPA promulgate area designations no later than 2 years
from the date of promulgation of the revised ozone NAAQS, and this rule
is needed to establish the air quality thresholds to classify areas
designated nonattainment, in this case by October 1, 2017.
Summary of Legal Basis: The CAA requires states to plan for the
attainment and maintenance the NAAQS. EPA establishes implementing
regulations that states follow to fulfill these CAA requirements.
Alternatives: The EPA plans to solicit comments on a number of
proposals, including nonattainment area classification thresholds, SIP
submission requirements for states with nonattainment areas and states
in the Ozone Transport Region, milestone compliance demonstrations,
plan submission and implementation deadlines for attainment planning
and emissions control requirements, flexible new source emissions
offsets for preconstruction permitting, clarification of emissions
inventory and emissions statement requirements, and state demonstration
requirements under CAA section 179B. The rule also includes
alternatives for treatment of outstanding state planning requirements
for the previous ozone NAAQS.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annual information collection
burden for ozone-related state planning averaged over the first 3 years
is estimated to be a total of 41,800 labor hours per year at an annual
labor cost of $2.5 million (present value) over the 3-year period, or
approximately $107,000 per state for the 23 anticipated state
respondents. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs
associated with the proposed rule requirements.
Risks: Ozone concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to can cause adverse public health and
welfare effects, as discussed in the October 26, 2015 Final Rule for
NAAQS for Ozone (80 FR 65292).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Robert Lingard, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, C539-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-5272, Email:
[email protected].
Lynn Dail, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2363, Fax: 919 541-0824, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS82
EPA--OAR
123. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2018 and Biomass
Based Diesel Volume (BBD) for 2019
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations
that specify the annual standards 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
[[Page 94652]]
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.
Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) requires the
Agency set annual renewable fuel standards.
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act section 211(o).
Alternatives: Alternatives will be assessed as the proposal is
developed.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed
as the proposal is developed.
Risks: Risk information will be developed as the proposal is
developed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/17
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4507, Email: [email protected].
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT04
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Proposed Rule Stage
124. 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: NYD.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 6(a) 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
chemical substances, 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 proposes that the use of TCE in
vapor degreasing presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is
initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address the risks of TCE
when used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in commercial and
consumer aerosol spray degreasers. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry
(RIN 2070-AK11) addresses the EPA's consideration of a rulemaking to
address the risks associated with TCE when used in vapor degreasing
operations.
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
chemical substances, 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................................ 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 334 Computer and
Electronic Product Manufacturing; 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance,
and Component Manufacturing; 332 Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing; 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing; 333
Machinery Manufacturing; 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 928 National
Security and International Affairs; 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 326
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing; 331 Primary Metal
Manufacturing; 323 Printing and Related Support Activities; 811 Repair
and Maintenance; 488 Support Activities for Transportation; 314 Textile
Product Mills; 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing; 493
Warehousing and Storage; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
Agency Contact: Toni Krasnic, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0984,
Email: [email protected].
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK03
EPA--OCSPP
125. N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene Chloride; Rulemaking Under
TSCA Section 6(A)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides
authority of EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of chemical, as well as
any manner or method of disposal of chemicals. EPA identified N-
methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride for risk evaluation as
part of its TSCA Work Plan for
[[Page 94653]]
Chemical Assessments. NMP and methylene chloride are uses 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, EPA identified risks of concern from paint and coating removal.
EPA proposes that the use of NMP and methylene chloride in paint and
coating presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is initiating
rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address these risks.
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................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Sectors Affected: 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing; 811121 Automotive
Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance; 325 Chemical
Manufacturing; 238330 Flooring Contractors; 711510 Independent Artists,
Writers, and Performers; 712110 Museums; 238320 Painting and Wall
Covering Contractors; 811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair; 336611
Ship Building and Repairing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
Agency Contact: Niva Kramek, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193,
Fax: 703 305-5884, Email: [email protected].
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK07
EPA--OCSPP
126. Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(A); Vapor
Degreasing
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 6(a) 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
chemical substances, 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
vapor degreasing. EPA proposes that the use of TCE in vapor degreasing
presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is initiating
rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address these risks. A separate
Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AK03) covers the EPA's consideration
of a rulemaking to address the risks associated with TCE when used as a
spotting agent in dry cleaning and in commercial and consumer aerosol
spray degreasers.
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
chemical substances, 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: Significant adverse human health effects have been found in
occupational settings and in consumer and residential settings.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Sectors Affected: 33641 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing;
336411 Aircraft Manufacturing; 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing; 33299 All Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing;
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing; 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing; 333999 All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery
Manufacturing; 33999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 339999 All
Other Miscellaneous
[[Page 94654]]
Manufacturing; 32799 All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Manufacturing; 326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing; 325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing; 334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential,
Commercial, and Appliance Use; 332722 Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and
Washer Manufacturing; 334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer,
and Other Inductor Manufacturing; 311812 Commercial Bakeries; 323111
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books); 811310 Commercial and
Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic)
Repair and Maintenance; 81131 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and
Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance;
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing; 332813
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring; 332912
Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing; 333511 Industrial
Mold Manufacturing; 333413 Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and
Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing; 337127 Institutional
Furniture Manufacturing; 334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring
and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals; 332111 Iron and Steel
Forging; 331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from
Purchased Steel; 339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing; 332431
Metal Can Manufacturing; 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except
Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332119
Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive);
332811 Metal Heat Treating; 332215 Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil,
Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing; 339
Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 33634 Motor Vehicle Brake System
Manufacturing; 336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing; 335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing; 928110
National Security; 331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting
and Refining; 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment
Manufacturing; 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers; 333318 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery
Manufacturing; 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing; 332618
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing; 333249 Other Industrial
Machinery Manufacturing; 334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device
Manufacturing; 3399 Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 332313 Plate
Work Manufacturing; 332913 Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim
Manufacturing; 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing;
332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing; 332216 Saw Blade and
Handtool Manufacturing; 334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance,
Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing; 332994
Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing; 325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 331512 Steel Investment
Foundries; 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
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].
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK11.
EPA--OCSPP
127. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS); Reassessment of Use
Authorizations for PCBS in Small Capacitors in Fluorescent Light
Ballasts in Schools and Daycares
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal
governments.
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 use of PCBs in small capacitors. In particular, the
reassessment of the use authorization will focus on the use of liquid
PCBs in small capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts. A separate
Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ38) addresses the proposed
reassessment of other PCB use authorizations.
Statement of Need: Since the commercial manufacture of PCBs in the
United States ceased in the 1970s, PCB-containing equipment is at least
30 years old and may be nearing the end of its expected useful life.
Several international treaties have recognized the hazards of PCBs and
the risks they pose to human health and the environment. EPA has
recently learned that there was widespread use of PCBs at levels at or
above 50 ppm, prior to the 1979 TSCA ban, in the formulation of caulk
used in schools and other commercial buildings. In the current
regulations PCBs are excluded from the TSCA ban only if found below 50
ppm. Thus, many schools and other building owners are now facing an
unauthorized use of PCBs that has been present in their buildings for
many years. This ANPR will solicit comment as to whether the current
threshold of 50 ppm should be revised so that PCBs in caulk found at
other levels could be authorized for use and, if so, under what
conditions. EPA is required to make a finding that the authorized use
will not present an unreasonable risk to human health and the
environment. Needless to say, many changes have taken place in the
industry sectors that use such equipment, and EPA believes that the
balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining
equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending
the current regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) provides that ``no
person may manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce or use any
polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than in a totally enclosed
manner'' after January 1, 1978. However, TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B)
provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations allowing the use
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that the use and
distribution in commerce ``will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment.'' EPA published the first
regulations addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31,
1979.
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: 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
[[Page 94655]]
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Sectors Affected: 31-33 Manufacturing; 811 Repair and Maintenance;
92 Public Administration.
URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pcbs.
Agency Contact: Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0515,
Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: [email protected].
Erik Winchester, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-6450, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK12
EPA--OCSPP
128. Procedures for Evaluating Existing Chemical Risks Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Toxic Substances Control
Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 22, 2017.
Abstract: On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which
amends the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Nation's primary
chemicals management law. A summary of the new law, which includes much
needed improvements to TSCA, is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular rulemaking effort
involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(4), which requires EPA to
promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish EPA's
process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and
determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk
evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.
Statement of Need: As required by statute, the EPA must establish
EPA's process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances
and determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk
evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.
Summary of Legal Basis: This particular rulemaking effort involves
the revised TSCA section 6(b)(4), which requires EPA to promulgate a
final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish EPA's process for
evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and determining
whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors,
including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use.
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: This will be a procedural rule related to risk evaluations.
It is not intended to address any particular risk.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.
Agency Contact: Susanna Blair, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7401M,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4371, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK20
EPA--OCSPP
129. Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk
Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which
amends the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Nation's primary
chemicals management law. A summary of the new law, which includes much
needed improvements to TSCA, is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular rulemaking effort
involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(1), which requires that EPA
promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish a risk-
based screening process, including criteria for designating chemical
substances as high-priority substances for risk evaluations or low-
priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the
time. As required by statute, the process to designate the priority of
chemical substances must include a consideration of the hazard and
exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of chemical
substances (including consideration of persistence and bioaccumulation,
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and storage near
significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of use or
significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical substance,
and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the chemical
substance manufactured or processed.
Statement of Need: As required by statute, the process to designate
the priority of chemical substances must include a consideration of the
hazard
[[Page 94656]]
and exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of
chemical substances (including consideration of persistence and
bioaccumulation, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and
storage near significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of
use or significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical
substance, and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the
chemical substance manufactured or processed.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is mandated by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amended the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), on June 22, 2016. This particular
rulemaking effort involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(1), which
requires that EPA promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to
establish a risk-based screening process, including criteria for
designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk
evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are
not warranted at the time.
Alternatives: Alternatives will not 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: This action will not address any particular risk. It will
establish a risk-based screening process, including criteria for
designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk
evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are
not warranted at the time.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.
Agency Contact: Ryan Schmit, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0610, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK23
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Proposed Rule Stage
130. Financial Responsibility Requirements Under Cercla Section 108(B)
for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
PL 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9608(b)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 320.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2016, Notice of
proposed rulemaking.
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 hardrock mining industry as those for which financial
responsibility requirements will be first developed. The 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 hardrock 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 hardrock mining and mineral
processing facilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 07/28/09 74 FR 37213
NPRM................................ 12/00/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: Docket No.: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781. Split
from RIN 2050-AG56.
Sectors Affected: 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas); 331 Primary
Metal Manufacturing.
URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-financial-responsibility.
URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0001.
Agency Contact: Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057, Email:
[email protected].
Scott Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, 5305P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8621, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG61
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Proposed Rule Stage
131. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.
[[Page 94657]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging review of
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine if there
is a national problem related to elevated lead levels. EPA's
comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series
of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from
stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR
implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of this
multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rules changes and EPA
promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications
on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead
and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified
several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more
comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term
in nature as they require additional data collection, research,
analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. This action
addresses the remaining regulatory revisions. EPA's goal for the LCR
revisions is to improve the effectiveness of public health protections
while maintaining a rule that can be effectively implemented by the
68,000 drinking water systems that are covered by the rule.
Statement of Need: Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging
review of implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine
if there is a national problem related to elevated lead levels. EPA's
comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series
of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from
stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR
implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of this
multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rules changes and EPA
promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications
on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead
and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified
several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more
comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term
in nature as they require additional data collection, research,
analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. EPA's goal
for the LCR revisions is to improve the effectiveness of public health
protections while maintaining a rule that can be effectively
implemented by the 68,000 drinking water systems that are covered by
the rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to establish maximum contaminant
level goals (MCLGs) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) for contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health
of persons, may occur in public water systems at a frequency and level
of public concern, and in the sole judgment of the Administrator,
regulation of the contaminant would present a meaningful opportunity
for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems
(section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The 1986 amendments to SDWA established a list
of 83 contaminants for which EPA is to develop MCLGs and NPDWRs, which
included lead and copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and Copper (56 FR
26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) fulfilled the requirements of the 1986 SDWA
amendments with respect to lead and copper. EPA promulgated a set of
short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications on October 10, 2007,
to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead and Copper Rule. In
developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified several regulatory
changes to be considered as part of identifying more comprehensive
changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term in nature as
they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and
stakeholder involvement to support decisions. Changes will be made to
improve the effectiveness of public health protections while
maintaining a rule that can be effectively implemented.
Alternatives: To be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/17
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: This action includes retrospective review
under Executive Order 13563; see: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/history.html.
URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/index.cfm.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Mail Code 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4880, Fax: 202 564-3760, Email:
[email protected].
Jerry Ellis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Mail
Code 4607M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2766, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF15
EPA--OW
132. Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications Under
the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. WRDDA
CFR Citation: TBD.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA is proposing this rule to establish fees for applying
for federal credit assistance under the Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. As specified under 33 U.S.C.
3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), EPA is authorized to charge fees
to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit
assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including counsel,
in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the
underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is
proposing an initial application fee, credit processing fee, and
servicing fee and is seeking comment on these.
Statement of Need: EPA is proposing to establish fees for applying
for federal credit assistance under the Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. As specified under 33 U.S.C.
3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), EPA is authorized to charge fees
to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit
assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including counsel,
in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the
underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is
proposing an initial application fee, credit processing fee, and
servicing fee and is seeking comment on these.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program authorizes EPA to
[[Page 94658]]
provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water
infrastructure projects. WIFIA was passed as part of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-121. The fees
are specified under 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3).
Alternatives: To Be Determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
Risks: To Be Determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/16
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jordan Dorfman, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-0614, Email: [email protected].
Karen Fligger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202
564-2992, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF63
RIN: 2040-AF64
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Final Rule Stage
133. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Subpart W: Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Uranium Mill
Tailings: Review
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 61.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) subpart W protects human health and the environment by setting
radon emission standards and work practices for operating uranium mill
tailings impoundments. The EPA is in the process of reviewing this
standard. If necessary, the Agency will revise the NESHAP requirements
for radon emissions from operating uranium mill tailings.
Statement of Need: This radionuclide NESHAP promulgated in 1989
limits radon emissions from operating impoundments that manage uranium
byproduct material. This review of the rule is prompted by a settlement
agreement based on EPA's failure to review the rule within 10 years of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action comes from
Clean Air Act section 112(q)(1).
Alternatives: The rule proposed to establish Generally Available
Control Technologies (GACT) or management practices for conventional
impoundments, non-conventional impoundments, and heap leach piles. EPA
proposed to: Eliminate the radon flux standard and monitoring at older
conventional impoundments; to require non-conventional impoundments to
retain one meter of liquid; to regulate heap leach piles from the
initial application of leaching solution; and to require heap leach
piles to maintain 30% moisture content. A specific alternative was
discussed only in relation to regulating heap leach piles. The
alternative was to not regulate the piles under subpart W until the
leaching (extraction) process was completed and the heap leach pile
contained only uranium byproduct material.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs attributable to the proposed
rule include the cost to maintain one meter of liquid in non-
conventional impoundments and the cost to maintain 30% moisture content
in heap leach piles. These costs represent less than 0.1% of baseline
facility costs. The primary benefit is maintaining air quality in the
vicinity of uranium recovery facilities to levels consistent with the
1989 rule.
Risks: The proposed rule maintains the estimated individual
lifetime risk of fatal cancer at approximately 1 x 10-4 or below,
consistent with the 1989 rule. Population risk is estimated at between
0.0015 and 0.0026 fatal cancers per year, or approximately 1 case every
385 to 667 years for the 4 million persons living within 80 km of
uranium recovery facilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/02/14 79 FR 25387
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 07/21/14 79 FR 42275
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Reid Rosnick, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9563, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email:
[email protected].
Dan Schultheisz, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 343-9349, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AP26
EPA--OAR
134. Revision of 40 CFR 192--Health and Environmental Protection
Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings and Uranium In Situ
Leaching Processing Facilities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. Atomic Energy Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 192.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192 establish standards
for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment from
radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with uranium ore
processing and disposal of resulting waste materials. These cross-media
standards, which apply to pollutant emissions and site restoration,
must be adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, their Agreement
States, and the Department of Energy. The EPA reviewed the standards in
the existing rule and proposed to revise the regulations in January
2016 (80 FR 4155), taking into particular account the significant
changes in uranium industry extraction technologies and their potential
impacts to groundwater. In addition, new facilities being proposed in
states from Virginia to Alaska add to the importance of this effort.
The final rule will incorporate comments from industry and public
stakeholders received during the proposal, as well as the intra-agency
workgroup.
Statement of Need: In-situ uranium recovery (ISR) is now the
dominant form of uranium recovery. ISR involves injection of chemical
solutions to alter groundwater chemistry and mobilize uranium, which is
then extracted. Monitoring and groundwater restoration must be
conducted to limit the potential for contamination during operations
and after facility closure. Rules specific to ISR do not exist at the
federal level. The current rulemaking will provide national consistency
in protecting groundwater at ISR facilities.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPA's authority to establish standards of
[[Page 94659]]
general application to protect public health, safety, and the
environment is provided by section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended by section 206 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978. EPA's standards of general application are
implemented and enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Alternatives: The proposed rule would establish a framework for
monitoring at ISR facilities. The primary alternatives proposed related
to the length of the long-term stability monitoring period. EPA
proposed a 30-year monitoring period, with provision to shorten using
geochemical modeling. Alternative presented were a 30-year period, with
no provision for shortening, and a narrative standard identifying
performance goals with no specified time period, in which the NRC would
determine whether monitoring is sufficient based on site-specific
conditions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule was estimated to
increase the average cost of uranium production at ISR facilities by
approximately $1.50 per pound of uranium (~2.9%), and that average
costs per facility would range from $304,000 to $9.5 million, depending
on the scale of the facility. Total annual costs attributable to the
rule were estimated at approximately $13.5 million. Benefits are
primarily the avoidance of remediation of contamination resulting from
insufficient restoration and monitoring. Because current practice is to
monitor for only a short period after restoration, it was not possible
to determine how many sites could require remediation in the absence of
the rule or quantify benefits, although it is estimated that the cost
of remediation at any particular site would likely exceed the cost of
compliance with the rule.
Risks: Risk to public health would be from exposure to groundwater
contamination resulting from insufficient restoration and monitoring.
Because current practice is to monitor for only a short period after
restoration, there is insufficient information to determine public
exposures after monitoring is terminated. Therefore, it is not possible
to quantify the health benefits of the rule, such as cancers averted.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/26/15 80 FR 4155
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 04/24/15 80 FR 22964
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Additional Information: SAN No. 5319.
Sectors Affected: 212291 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining.
Agency Contact: Ingrid Rosencrantz, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 2844T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0961, Email:
[email protected].
Tom Peake, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 343-9765, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AP43
EPA--OAR
135. Model Trading Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric
Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 62.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) promulgated in August
2015, the EPA set Emission Guidelines for the best system of emission
reductions for carbon dioxide from existing power plants. States were
tasked in the CPP with developing plans to achieve reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions from the existing power plants in each state. In
these model trading rules, the EPA will finalize models that provide
two optional approaches (rate-based and mass-based emission trading
programs) that states may use in developing a plan.
Statement of Need: These model trading rules provide states with
examples of a mass-based trading program and a rate-based trading
program that can be used as part of a state plan submission for the
Clean Power Plan. These model trading rules achieve the level of carbon
dioxide emission reductions achieved through the Clean Power Plan.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Model Trading rules are example trading
programs the states may use to achieve emission reductions for carbon
dioxide from existing power plants. They can be used by states as part
of their submissions for the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was
developed under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 111.
Alternatives: In the proposal, the EPA solicited comments on many
topics. For the rate-based Model Trading Rule, the EPA solicited
comment on different methods for calculating Gas Shift Emission Rate
Credits. Also in the rate-based Model Trading Rule, there were
alternatives sought for the overall structure of a rate-base trading
rule that aligns with the Clean Power Plan and facilitates interstate
trading. For the mass-based Model Trading Rule, the EPA solicited
comment on allocation approaches and methods for addressing leakage.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs for
these Model Trading Rules that differ from the anticipated costs
described in the Clean Power Plan. The Model Trading Rules have the
anticipated benefits described there as well. Actions taken to comply
with the Clean Power Plan will also reduce the emissions of directly-
emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. The
benefits associated with these PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX reductions are referred to as co-benefits, as these
reductions are not the primary objective of this rule. The RIA for the
Clean Power Plan spells out, in detail, the numerical benefits
associated with the model trading rules.
Risks: Because these Model Trading Rules are example trading
programs for states, there is no risk associated with them outside of
what is described in the Clean Power Plan.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/23/15 80 FR 64965
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
Agency Contact: Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Phone: 919 541-4080, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email:
[email protected].
Jeremy Tarr, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, D205-01, RTP, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-3731, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS47
[[Page 94660]]
EPA--OAR
136. 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, 2016, The statute
requires the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to
the year in which the standards would apply.
Final Statutory November 30,2016, 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.
Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations that specify the annual standards 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 that 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 that 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 propose the BBD standard for 2018.
Statement of Need: Section 211(o) of 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.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) 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.
Alternatives: The action will establish renewable fuel standards
for the years identified above. Comments submitted during the public
process will be reviewed and considered in the final standards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the proposal, EPA estimated that
the cost to produce renewable fuels compared to the costs of producing
petroleum fuels would range from $535 to $971 million in 2017. These
illustrative cost estimate are not meant to be precise measures, nor do
they attempt to capture the full impacts of the rule. These estimates
are provided solely for the purpose of showing how the cost to produce
a gallon of a ``representative'' renewable fuel compares to the cost of
producing a petroleum fuel. The short timeframe 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 annual
standards. Since the benefits are unquantified, the net benefits are
incalculable.
Risks: A risk analysis was not conducted.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/31/16 81 FR 34777
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,
Office of Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4507, Email: [email protected].
Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AS72
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Final Rule Stage
137. 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 competence 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 to 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
[[Page 94661]]
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, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 11/14/14 79 FR 68152
Notice.............................. 11/14/14 79 FR 68152
NPRM................................ 08/24/15 80 FR 51355
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 11/18/15 80 FR 72029
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/23/15 80 FR 79803
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket No.: 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, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 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, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AJ20
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Final Rule Stage
138. Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations
Under Clean Air Act
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA, in response to Executive Order 13650, is
amending its Risk Management Program regulations. Such revisions may
include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements
including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives
for the process hazard analysis for some Program 3 processes, third-
party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for Program
2 and Program 3 processes, enhancements to the emergency preparedness
requirements, increased public availability of chemical hazard
information, and several other changes to certain regulatory
definitions and data elements submitted in risk management plans. Such
amendments are intended to improve chemical process safety, assist
local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to
accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at
regulated sources.
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. 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
[[Page 94662]]
considering publishing non-regulatory guidance to address some issues
that will 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................................ 03/14/16 81 FR 13637
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
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: https://www.epa.gov/rmp.
URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
Agency Contact: Jim Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8023, Fax: 202 564-8444, Email:
[email protected].
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG82
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Final Rule Stage
139. Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. WRDDA
CFR Citation: Undetermined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The EPA is taking this action to implement the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. WIFIA was
passed as part of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014, Pub. L. 113-121. This action will establish guidelines for the
application process, selection criteria, and project selection, as well
as define threshold requirements for credit assistance, limits on
credit assistance, reporting requirements, collection of fees and the
application of other Federal statutes.
Statement of Need: EPA plans to issue an interim final rule that
establishes the guidelines for a new credit assistance program for
water infrastructure projects and the process by which EPA will
administer such credit assistance. The rule will implement a new
program authorized under the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA authorizes EPA to provide secured
(direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water infrastructure
projects. Following project selection by the EPA Administrator,
individual credit agreements will be developed through negotiations
between the project sponsors and EPA. The interim final rule primarily
restates and clarifies statutory language while establishing approaches
to specific procedural issues left to EPA's discretion.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program authorizes EPA to provide secured
(direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligble water infrastructure
projects. WIFIA was passed as part of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-121.
Alternatives: To Be Determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
Risks: To Be Determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Karen Fligger, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-2992, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF63
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
[[Page 94663]]
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 Regulatory Plan has one item entitled ``Affirmative Action for
Individuals With Disabilities in the Federal Government.'' The EEOC's
regulations implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR 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 it
issued a proposed rule on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9123), 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.
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
contracts or
subcontracts.
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. Federal sector
equal employment
opportunity process
and thus is not
expected to affect
small businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEOC
Final Rule Stage
140. Affirmative Action for Individuals With Disabilities in the
Federal Government
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 NPRM was published on February
24, 2016 (81 FR 9123). 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,
[[Page 94664]]
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................................ 02/24/16 81 FR 9123
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/25/16
Final Action........................ 11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Regulatory Plan--October 2016
I. Mission and Overview
GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's
acquisition solutions supply Federal purchasers with cost-effective,
high-quality products and services from commercial vendors. GSA
provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation
of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the Nation safe by
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 serves the public by delivering services directly to its
Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the
Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide
Policy (OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers
and the U.S. taxpayers by providing those services in the most cost-
effective manner possible.
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS
organization leverages the buying power of the Government by
consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and
services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition
services that increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency.
FAS business operations are organized into four business portfolios
based on the product or service provided to customer agencies:
Integrated Technology Services (ITS); Assisted Acquisition Services
(AAS); General Supplies and Services (GSS); and Travel, Motor Vehicles,
and Card Services (TMVCS). The FAS portfolio structure enables GSA and
FAS to provide best value services, products, and solutions to its
customers by aligning resources around key functions.
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 aims to provide a superior workplace for the
Federal worker and superior value for the U.S. taxpayer. Balancing
these two objectives is PBS' greatest management challenge. 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 regulatory function fully
incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and
objectives under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 with policies
covering acquisition, travel, and property and management practices to
promote efficient Government operations. OGP's strategic direction is
to ensure that Government-wide policies encourage agencies to develop
and utilize the best, most cost effective management practices for the
conduct of their specific programs. To reach the goal of improving
Government-wide management of property, technology, and administrative
services, OGP builds and maintains a policy framework by: (1)
Incorporating the requirements of Federal laws, Executive orders, and
other regulatory material into policies and guidelines; (2)
facilitating Government-wide reform to provide Federal managers with
business-like incentives and tools and flexibility to prudently manage
their assets; (3) identifying, evaluating, and promoting best practices
to improve efficiency of management processes; and (4) performing
ongoing analysis of existing rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary,
unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive.
OGP's policy regulations are described in the following
subsections:
Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Travel
Regulation)
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and
relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees and
others, as specified therein. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is
available at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. Each version is updated as official
changes are published in the Federal Register. Federal Register
publications and complete versions of the FTR are available at
www.gsa.gov/ftr.
The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR),
[[Page 94665]]
chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory requirements and
executive branch policies for official travel by Federal civilian
employees and others authorized to travel at Government expense.
The Administrator of General Services promulgates the FTR to: (a)
Interpret statutory and other policy requirements in a manner that
balances the need to ensure that official travel is conducted in a
responsible manner with the need to minimize administrative costs; and
(b) communicate the resulting policies in a clear manner to Federal
agencies and employees.
Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Management
Regulation)
The 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. However, it does not contain
FPMR material that describes how to do business with GSA.
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
supplements 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. The latter are primarily
established under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 585. The GSAR implements
contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that control the
relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.
II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
FTR Regulatory Priorities
In fiscal year 2017, 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, or incorporates industry best practices at the lowest
logical travel cost.
Revising chapters 301; Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel
Allowances and 304, Payment of Travel Expenses from a Non-Federal
Source to clarify the full or partial waiver of conference registration
fees from a non-Federal conference organizer.
FMR Regulatory Priorities
In fiscal year 2017, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
Revising rules regarding management of Federal real
property;
Revising rules regarding management of Federal personal
property.