83 FR 1664 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2017
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 9 (January 12, 2018)
Page Range
1664-1821
FR Document
2017-28207
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,'' Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' February 24, 2017. 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 website (or below, VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?). The fall 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal Register includes 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 2017 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 30 Federal agencies and 60 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 1664-1821]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28207]
[[Page 1663]]
Vol. 83
Friday,
No. 9
January 12, 2018
Part II
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2017
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 /
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 1664]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2017
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,'' Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30,
2017, and Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda,'' February 24, 2017. 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 website (or below, VI. How Can Users
Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?).
The fall 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal
Register includes 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 2017 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 2017 Regulatory Plan
AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS
Cabinet Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Other Executive Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Office of Personnel Management
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
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 Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Other Executive Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
Small Business Administration
Joint Authority
Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition
Regulation)
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communications 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.
[[Page 1665]]
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been
available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available
to the public at http://www.reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda
offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda
database to1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda
includes regulatory agendas from 67 Federal agencies. Agencies of the
United States Congress are not included.
The fall 2017 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
American Battle Monuments Commission
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Aeronautics and Space Administration *
National Archives and Records Administration *
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Mediation Board
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
Presidio Trust
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration *
Tennessee Valley Authority
Independent Agencies
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Labor Relations Board
National Transportation Safety Board
Postal Regulatory Commission
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
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,''
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 13771
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) requires each agency
to identify for elimination two prior regulations for every one new
regulation issued, and the cost of planned regulations be
[[Page 1666]]
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.
Executive Order 13777
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,''
February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) requires each agency to designate an
agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall
oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and
policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory
reforms, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order also
directs that each agency designate a regulatory Reform Task Force.
Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) supplements and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which
includes the general principles of regulation and public participation,
and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies;
flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or
technological information and processes used to support the agencies'
regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 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,'' 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
[[Page 1667]]
Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
2. Proposed Rule Stage--Actions for which agencies plan to publish
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the
next step.
3. Final Rule Stage--Actions for which agencies plan to publish a
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as
the next step.
4. Long-Term Actions--Items under development but for which the
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
5. Completed Actions--Actions or reviews the agency has completed
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the
Agenda.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To
further differentiate these two 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
[[Page 1668]]
whether the deadline pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other
action.
Abstract--A brief description of the problem the regulation will
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available,
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and
potential costs and benefits of the action.
Timetable--The dates and citations (if available) for all past
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/14 means the
agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but
not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate
what the next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does
not know what action it will take next.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--Whether an analysis is
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.
Small Entities Affected--The types of small entities (businesses,
governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking
action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects
on small entities even though they believe that a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
Government Levels Affected--Whether the action is expected to
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the 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.
E.O.--An Executive order is a directive from the President to
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority.
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents,
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
[squ] 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;
[squ] 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.
[[Page 1669]]
Public laws are numbered in sequence throughout the 2-year life of each
Congress; for example, Public Law 112-4 is the fourth public law of the
112th Congress.
RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in
the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda, as directed by Executive
Order 12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB has asked agencies to
include RINs in the headings of their Rule and Proposed Rule documents
when publishing them in the Federal Register, to make it easier for the
public and agency officials to track the publication history of
regulatory actions throughout their development.
Seq. No.--The sequence number identifies the location of an entry
in the printed edition of the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda.
Note that a specific regulatory action will have the same RIN
throughout its development but will generally have different sequence
numbers if it appears in 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 website. 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 website 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 29, 2017.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
Introduction to the Fall 2017 Regulatory Plan
Following statutory directions, the Executive Branch implements
many federal policies through regulatory action in areas as diverse as
homeland security, environmental protection, energy policy,
transportation, federal land management, education, and commerce. Over
many decades, federal agencies have imposed countless regulatory
requirements on individuals, businesses, landowners, and state and
local governments. Some of these regulations serve important public
purposes. Other regulations, however, are outdated, duplicative, or
unnecessary, yet they continue to impose costly burdens. President
Trump has committed to reducing the regulatory burden on the American
public in order to promote economic growth, job creation, and
innovation.
This Fall 2017 Regulatory Plan reflects a fundamental shift. The
Trump Administration recognizes that excessive and unnecessary federal
regulations limit individual freedom and suppress the innovation and
entrepreneurship that make America great. Starting with confidence in
private markets and individual choices, this Administration is
reassessing existing regulatory burdens. In the 2017 Plan, Agencies
have identified regulatory actions ripe for reform and are working to
eliminate or modify them. This Administration also approaches the
imposition of new regulatory requirements with caution to ensure that
regulations are consistent with law, necessary to correct a substantial
market failure, and net beneficial to the public. Furthermore, the
Plan, along with the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions (``Agenda''), identifies the Administration's priorities in
manner that is transparent and accessible to the public.
Our regulatory philosophy and approach emphasize the connection
between limited government intervention and individual liberty.
Regulatory policy should serve the American people by staying within
legal limits and administering the law with respect for due process and
fair notice. The 2017 Plan sets forth the Administration's roadmap for
a more limited, effective, and accountable regulatory policy.
Federal Regulatory Policy
The 2017 Plan both sets a new direction in regulatory policy and
preserves many longstanding regulatory best practices. Stressing that
``it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental
imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations,'' President Trump directed all federal agencies to
eliminate two regulations for each new one implemented and to reduce
new regulatory costs to zero in Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017). He
also created regulatory reform officers and regulatory reform
taskforces in each agency in Executive Order 13777 (``Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' February 24, 2017). Within the Office of
Management and Budget, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(``OIRA'') implements federal regulatory policy and has led efforts to
implement these presidential directives, working with agencies to
identify deregulatory actions and eliminate regulatory burdens.
OIRA also continues to respect and pursue longstanding principles
and practices of centralized regulatory review. These principles, set
out in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866, emphasize that
agencies should regulate only when necessary, when consistent with law,
and in a manner that produces real net benefits for the American
people. The Administration also takes seriously retrospective review
and the imperative to evaluate the actual costs and benefits of
existing regulations. The President's two-for-one directive and the
creation of a regulatory cap requires that agencies eliminate
unnecessary or excessively burdensome rules as part of their regulatory
planning.
OIRA works with agencies to promote sound science and economic
analysis. Agencies should develop improved regulatory impact analyses
of the costs and benefits of their actions, relying on reasonable
assumptions and public input. In some instances, analysis will require
revisiting previous regulatory impact assessments to ensure that they
[[Page 1670]]
reflect the best possible estimate of costs and benefits. Moving
forward, it requires rigor and fairness in assessing the actual impacts
of new regulatory and deregulatory policies.
This Administration's regulatory philosophy also emphasizes the
rule of law, including constitutional, statutory, and procedural limits
on administrative action. For instance, OIRA requires agencies to
indicate the legal authority for regulatory actions, whether from a
statute or judicial order. We look closely at planned regulatory and
deregulatory actions to ensure that they follow the law and the correct
administrative procedures.
Moreover, the Administration has reinforced the importance of fair
notice and due process. In particular, this means agencies should
closely examine their use of sub-regulatory actions, such as guidance
documents, enforcement manuals, interpretive rules, ``FAQs,'' and the
like. Such documents can serve an important role in explaining existing
statutory or regulatory requirements; however, they should not be used
to impose new or additional legal obligations or requirements.
Accordingly, this Administration has encouraged agencies to take a
close look at existing guidance documents to assess whether some of
them should be withdrawn or modified, or whether their requirements
should go through a process of notice and comment rulemaking. Limiting
guidance to its intended purpose of clarifying existing law rather than
making new law will provide greater transparency about the regulatory
process and ensure that regulated entities and the public have notice
and an opportunity to comment on significant changes in regulatory
requirements.
These specific policies rest on foundational principles of the
proper role of the Executive Branch in our constitutional system of
separation of powers. Agencies should administer the law found in
statutes, not make new law, and they should respect the judicial role
in enforcing limits on administrative power. Moreover, faithful
execution of the laws requires the Administration be directly
accountable for its regulatory policies and ensure that regulations and
their enforcement benefit the American people.
2018 Regulatory Priorities
Reducing regulatory burdens. One of the primary priorities
reflected in the 2017 Regulatory Plan is the reduction of regulatory
burdens. Accordingly, in 2018, across the Administration agencies
anticipate eliminating and streamlining approximately three regulations
for each new one imposed. Moreover, agencies are set to substantially
reduce overall regulatory costs. This Regulatory Plan reflects a new
direction that recognizes the costs of accumulated regulatory burdens
and looks for ways to reduce those burdens by modifying or eliminating
regulations; revising or eliminating guidance documents; and
streamlining information collections.
Agencies have taken several approaches to identifying burdens that
can be minimized or eliminated. Regulatory reform task forces have
brought together political leadership and career staff to review and
revise existing regulations. Agencies have sought extensive public
comments, both through written submissions and public listening
sessions. Other agencies have studied specific problems of
overregulation and drafted comprehensive reports evaluating existing
regulations. Based on extensive experience across administrations, OIRA
has also worked with the agencies to identify potential areas for
reform. These efforts by the agencies, in consultation with the public
and OIRA, have yielded notable progress, as reflected in the agency
Regulatory Plans that follow.
Efficacious new regulations. Agencies have also planned new
regulatory initiatives required by law or by a compelling public need.
These actions should be guided by good regulatory practices, which
include regulating only when necessary, carefully studying lawful
alternatives, and engaging with the public and affected parties.
Moreover, when proceeding with regulations, agencies should rely on
sound science and thorough cost-benefit analysis. Unless specifically
required by law, agencies should regulate only when the benefits
substantially outweigh the costs, and OIRA will carefully examine each
proposed regulation to ensure that it is the least burdensome
regulatory approach that meets the relevant statutory standards.
Transparency and public access. This Administration remains
committed to transparency in the regulatory process, public access to
information about regulatory policy, and public participation in
proposed rules. OIRA is working with agencies to ensure that items
listed on the Plan and Agenda reflect carefully considered and current
policy priorities. In addition, with this Regulatory Plan and Fall
Agenda, OIRA has taken a number of steps to improve transparency. For
instance, we have published the ``Inactive List,'' a list of
regulations agencies might pursue in the future. Although maintained
for many years, the Inactive list was not previously available to the
public. Publishing the Inactive List online allows the public a more
complete picture of anticipated agency actions.
OIRA has also implemented enhanced categorization and online search
capabilities for the Agenda, so the public can identify actions
anticipated to be regulatory or deregulatory and other detailed
information. We hope these enhancements will further public
understanding of proposed regulatory actions and encourage
participation in the regulatory process.
Conclusion
The agency plans that follow push against the inertia of steadily
expanding regulatory burdens and represent this Administration's
commitment to reducing regulations that no longer benefit our society.
The plans also send a clear message that the public can invest and plan
for the future without the looming threat of burdensome and unnecessary
new regulations. OIRA looks forward to working with the agencies and
all interested stakeholders to deliver meaningful regulatory reform to
the American people.
Neomi Rao,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. National Bioengineered 0581-AD54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Food Disclosure Standard.
2............................. NOP: Organic Livestock 0581-AD75 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Poultry Practices.
3............................. Lacey Act Implementation 0579-AD44 Proposed Rule Stage.
Plan: De Minimis
Exception and Composite
Articles.
4............................. National Environmental 0579-AC60 Final Rule Stage.
Policy Act Implementing
Procedures.
5............................. Animal Welfare; 0579-AD99 Final Rule Stage.
Establishing De Minimis
Exemptions From
Licensing.
[[Page 1671]]
6............................. Child Nutrition Programs: 0584-AE53 Final Rule Stage.
Flexibilities for Milk,
Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements.
7............................. Modernization of Swine 0583-AD62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Slaughter Inspection.
8............................. Administrative Issuances; 0596-AC65 Final Rule Stage.
Involving the Public in
the Formulation of
Forest Service
Directives (Rule).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9............................. Taking and Importing 0648-BB38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Marine Mammals; Taking
Marine Mammals
Incidental to
Geophysical Surveys in
the Gulf of Mexico.
10............................ Illegal, Unregulated, and 0648-BG11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Unreported Fishing;
Fisheries Enforcement;
High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act.
11............................ Endangered and Threatened 0648-BG26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Species; Designation of
Critical Habitat for
Threatened Caribbean and
Indo-Pacific Reef-
Building Corals.
12............................ Commerce Trusted Trader 0648-BG51 Proposed Rule Stage.
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13............................ Earned Value Management 0750-AJ10 Proposed Rule Stage.
Applicability (DFARS
Case 2015-D038).
14............................ Contractor Purchasing 0750-AJ48 Proposed Rule Stage.
System Review Threshold
(DFARS Case 2017-D038).
15............................ Brand Name or Equal 0750-AJ50 Proposed Rule Stage.
(DFARS Case 2017-D040).
16............................ Amendment to Mentor- 0750-AJ05 Final Rule Stage.
Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
Program (DFARS Case 2016-
D011).
17............................ Use of the Government 0750-AJ11 Final Rule Stage.
Property Clause (DFARS
Case 2015-D035).
18............................ Repeal of Independent 0750-AJ51 Final Rule Stage.
Research and Development
Technical Interchange
(DFARS Case 2017-D041).
19............................ Establishment of TRICARE 0720-AB70 Final Rule Stage.
Select and Other TRICARE
Reforms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1870-AA14 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or
Activities Receiving
Federal Financial
Assistance.
21............................ Borrower Defense and 1840-AD26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Related Issues.
22............................ Program Integrity; 1840-AD31 Proposed Rule Stage.
Gainful Employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards and Definition
for General Service
Lamps.
24............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Residential Conventional
Cooking Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25............................ HIPAA Privacy Rule: 0945-AA09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Presumption of Good
Faith of HealthCare
Providers.
26............................ Health Information 0955-AA01 Proposed Rule Stage.
Technology:
Interoperability and
Certification
Enhancements.
27............................ Certification of Opioid 0930-AA27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Treatment Programs.
28............................ Confidentiality of 0930-AA26 Final Rule Stage.
Substance Use Disorder
Patient Records.
29............................ Mammography Quality 0910-AH04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards Act;
Regulatory Amendments.
30............................ Medical Device De Novo 0910-AH53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Classification Process.
31............................ Requirement for Access or 0910-AH62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Safe Use of Certain
Nonprescription Drug
Products.
32............................ Medication Guides; 0910-AH68 Proposed Rule Stage.
Patient Medication
Information.
33............................ Format and Content of 0910-AH89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Reports Intended to
Demonstrate Substantial
Equivalence.
34............................ 340B Drug Pricing Program 0906-AB12 Proposed Rule Stage.
Ceiling Price and
Manufacturer Civil
Monetary Penalties
Regulation.
[[Page 1672]]
35............................ National Vaccine Injury 0906-AB14 Proposed Rule Stage.
Compensation Program:
Revisions to the Vaccine
Injury Table.
36............................ Policy and Technical 0938-AT08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Changes to the Medicare
Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription
Drug Benefit Programs
for Contract Year 2019
(CMS-4182-P).
37............................ Regulatory Provisions to 0938-AT23 Proposed Rule Stage.
Promote Program
Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden
Reduction (CMS-3346-P).
38............................ Hospital Inpatient 0938-AT27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Prospective Payment
System for Acute Care
Hospitals and the Long-
Term Care Hospital
Prospective Payment
System and FY 2019 Rates
(CMS-1694-P).
39............................ Requirements for Long- 0938-AT36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Term Care Facilities:
Regulatory Provisions to
Promote Program
Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden
Reduction (CMS-3347-P).
40............................ Medicaid and CHIP Managed 0938-AT40 Proposed Rule Stage.
Care (CMS-2408-P).
41............................ Adoption and Foster Care 0970-AC72 Prerule Stage.
Analysis and Reporting
System.
42............................ Head Start Service 0970-AC73 Proposed Rule Stage.
Duration Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43............................ Inadmissibility and 1615-AA22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Deportability on Public
Charge Grounds.
44............................ Registration Requirement 1615-AB71 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Petitioners Seeking
To File H-1B Petitions
on Behalf of Aliens
Subject to Numerical
Limitations.
45............................ Rescission of 1615-AC04 Proposed Rule Stage.
International
Entrepreneur Rule.
46............................ EB-5 Immigrant Investor 1615-AC11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Regional Center Program.
47............................ Strengthening the H-1B 1615-AC13 Proposed Rule Stage.
Nonimmigrant Visa
Classification Program.
48............................ Removing H-4 Dependent 1615-AC15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Spouses from the Class
of Aliens Eligible for
Employment Authorization.
49............................ EB-5 Immigrant Investor 1615-AC07 Final Rule Stage.
Program Modernization.
50............................ Air Cargo Advance 1651-AB04 Final Rule Stage.
Screening (ACAS).
51............................ Collection of Biometric 1651-AB12 Final Rule Stage.
Data Upon Entry to and
Exit From the United
States.
52............................ Implementation of the 1651-AB14 Final Rule Stage.
Electronic System for
Travel Authorization
(ESTA) at U.S. Land
Borders--Automation of
CBP Form I-94W.
53............................ Vetting of Certain 1652-AA69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
54............................ Amending Vetting 1652-AA70 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements for
Employees With Access to
a Security
Identification Display
Area (SIDA).
55............................ Flight Training for 1652-AA35 Final Rule Stage.
Aliens and Other
Designated Individuals;
Security Awareness
Training for Flight
School Employees.
56............................ Ronald Reagan Washington 1652-AA49 Final Rule Stage.
National Airport:
Enhanced Security
Procedures for Certain
Operations.
57............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Final Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
58............................ Adjusting Program Fees 1653-AA74 Proposed Rule Stage.
for the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program.
59............................ Apprehension, Processing, 1653-AA75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Care and Custody of
Alien Minors.
60............................ Practical Training Reform 1653-AA76 Proposed Rule Stage.
61............................ Factors Considered When 1660-AA83 Final Rule Stage.
Evaluating a Governor's
Request for Individual
Assistance for a Major
Disaster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62............................ Project Approval for 2502-AJ30 Final Rule Stage.
Single Family
Condominium (FR-5715).
63............................ Housing Opportunity 2577-AD03 Proposed Rule Stage.
Through Modernization
Act of 2016 (FR-6057).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64............................ Rescission of the 2015 1004-AE52 Final Rule Stage.
BLM Hydraulic Fracturing
Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1673]]
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65............................ Public Safety Officers' 1121-AA85 Final Rule Stage.
Benefits Program
Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66............................ Request for Information 1235-AA20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Defining and Delimiting
the Exemptions for
Executive,
Administrative,
Professional, Outside
Sales and Computer
Employees.
67............................ Apprenticeship Programs, 1205-AB85 Proposed Rule Stage.
Labor Standards for
Registration, Amendment
of Regulations.
68............................ Tracking of Workplace 1218-AD17 Proposed Rule Stage.
Injuries and Illnesses.
69............................ Occupational Exposure to 1218-AB76 Final Rule Stage.
Beryllium.
70............................ Standards Improvement 1218-AC67 Final Rule Stage.
Project IV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71............................ Pilot Records Database 2120-AK31 Proposed Rule Stage.
(HR 5900).
72............................ Orbital Debris Mitigation 2120-AK81 Proposed Rule Stage.
Methods for Launch
Vehicle Upper Stages
(Orbital Debris).
73............................ Operations of Small 2120-AK85 Proposed Rule Stage.
Unmanned Aircraft Over
People.
74............................ Pilot Professional 2120-AJ87 Final Rule Stage.
Development.
75............................ Transport Airplane Fuel 2120-AK24 Final Rule Stage.
Tank and System
Lightning Protection.
76............................ Registration and Marking 2120-AK82 Final Rule Stage.
Requirements for Small
Unmanned Aircraft.
77............................ Rear Seat Belt Reminder 2127-AL37 Proposed Rule Stage.
System.
78............................ Passenger Car and Light 2127-AL76 Proposed Rule Stage.
Truck Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards
MYs 2022-2025.
79............................ Passenger Equipment 2130-AC46 Final Rule Stage.
Safety Standards
Amendments.
80............................ Private Investment 2132-AB27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Project Procedures.
81............................ Public Transportation 2132-AB23 Final Rule Stage.
Agency Safety Plans.
82............................ Pipeline Safety: Class 2137-AF29 Prerule Stage.
Location Requirements.
83............................ Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE66 Final Rule Stage.
of Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
84............................ Pipeline Safety: Gas 2137-AE72 Final Rule Stage.
Transmission.
85............................ Hazardous Materials: Oil 2137-AF08 Final Rule Stage.
Spill Response Plans and
Information Sharing for
High-Hazard Flammable
Trains.
86............................ Hazardous Materials: 2137-AF20 Final Rule Stage.
Enhanced Safety
Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported by
Aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87............................ Prosthetic and 2900-AP46 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rehabilitative Items and
Services.
88............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP58 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V005, Parts 812 and
813).
89............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP81 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V004, Parts 811 and
832).
90............................ Beneficiary Travel....... 2900-AP89 Proposed Rule Stage.
91............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ02 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2015-V010).
92............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principle (VAAR Case
2016-V002, Parts 829,
846 and 847).
93............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ05 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principle (VAAR Case
2016-V003, Parts 844 and
845).
94............................ Authority of Health Care 2900-AQ06 Proposed Rule Stage.
Providers to Practice
Telehealth.
95............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ18 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V008).
96............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ19 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V006).
97............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2015-V011).
98............................ Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AQ21 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2015-V012).
99............................ Per Diem Paid to States 2900-AO88 Final Rule Stage.
for Care of Eligible
Veterans in State Homes.
[[Page 1674]]
100........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP50 Final Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V001, Parts 803,
814 and 822).
101........................... Revise and Streamline VA 2900-AP82 Final Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
to Adhere to Federal
Acquisition Regulation
Principles (VAAR Case
2014-V002, Parts 816 and
828).
102........................... Reimbursement for 2900-AQ08 Final Rule Stage.
Emergency Treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103........................... State Guidelines for 2060-AT67 Prerule Stage.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Existing Electric
Utility Generating Units.
104........................... Oil and Natural Gas 2060-AT54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sector: Emission
Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources
Reconsideration.
105........................... Pesticides; Certification 2070-AK37 Proposed Rule Stage.
of Pesticide Applicators
Rule; Reconsideration of
the Minimum Age
Requirements.
106........................... Pesticides; Agricultural 2070-AK43 Proposed Rule Stage.
Worker Protection
Standard;
Reconsideration of
Several Requirements.
107........................... Clean Water Act Hazardous 2050-AG87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Substances Spill
Prevention.
108........................... Hazardous and Solid Waste 2050-AG88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Management System:
Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues From
Electric Utilities:
Remand Rule.
109........................... Accidental Release 2050-AG95 Proposed Rule Stage.
Prevention Requirements:
Risk Management Programs
Under the Clean Air Act;
Reconsideration of
Amendments.
110........................... National Primary Drinking 2040-AF15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
111........................... Second Action: Definition 2040-AF75 Proposed Rule Stage.
of 'Waters of the United
States'.
112........................... Renewable Fuel Volume 2060-AT04 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for 2018 and
Biomass Based Diesel
Volume (BBD) for 2019.
113........................... Repeal of Carbon 2060-AT55 Final Rule Stage.
Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility
Generating Units.
114........................... Financial Responsibility 2050-AG61 Final Rule Stage.
Requirements Under
CERCLA Section 108(b)
for Classes of
Facilities in the
Hardrock Mining Industry.
115........................... Definition of ``Waters of 2040-AF74 Final Rule Stage.
the United States''--
Recodification of Pre-
existing Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116........................... Federal Sector Equal 3046-AB00 Proposed Rule Stage.
Employment Opportunity
Process.
117........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB10 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
118........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Genetic
Information
Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119........................... SBA Express Loan Program; 3245-AG74 Proposed Rule Stage.
Export Express Program.
120........................... Women-Owned Small 3245-AG75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Business and
Economically
Disadvantaged Women-
Owned Small Business--
Certification.
121........................... Office of Women's 3245-AG02 Final Rule Stage.
Business Ownership:
Women's Business Center
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122........................... Investigative Policies 0960-AH79 Prerule Stage.
for Organizational
Representative Payees.
123........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG38 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Musculoskeletal
Disorders (3318P).
124........................... Update to the 0960-AG65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Comprehensive Medical
Listings--Revised
Medical Criteria for
Evaluating Digestive
Disorders,
Cardiovascular
Disorders, and Skin
Disorders.
125........................... Minimum Monthly 0960-AH42 Proposed Rule Stage.
Withholding Amount for
Recovery of Title II
Benefit Overpayments
(3752P).
126........................... Removing Ability to 0960-AH86 Proposed Rule Stage.
Communicate in English
as a Vocational Factor.
127........................... Use of Electronic Payroll 0960-AH88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Data To Improve Program
Administration.
[[Page 1675]]
128........................... Newer and Stronger 0960-AH91 Proposed Rule Stage.
Penalties (Conforming
Changes).
129........................... Privacy Act Exemption: 0960-AH97 Proposed Rule Stage.
Personnel Security and
Suitability Program
Files.
130........................... References to Social 0960-AI04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Security and Medicare in
Electronic
Communications.
131........................... Availability of 0960-AI07 Proposed Rule Stage.
Information and Records
to the Public.
132........................... Privacy Act Exemption: 0960-AI08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Social Security
Administration Violence
and Reporting System
(SSAvers).
133........................... Redeterminations When 0960-AI10 Proposed Rule Stage.
There is a Reason To
Believe Fraud or Similar
Fault Was Involved in an
Individual's Application
for Benefits.
134........................... Changes to the 0960-AI22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements for
Claimant Representation.
135........................... Making Permanent the 0960-AI23 Final Rule Stage.
Attorney Advisor Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD/GSA/NASA (FAR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136........................... Federal Acquisition 9000-AN62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Regulation (FAR); FAR
Case 2018-002,
Protecting Life in
Global Health Assistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Indian Gaming Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence no. Title identifier no. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
137........................... Class II Minimum Internal 3141-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Control Standards.
138........................... Minimum Internal Control 3141-AA55 Final Rule Stage.
Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Regulatory reform is one of the cornerstones of the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) strategy for creating a culture of consistent,
efficient service to our customers, while reducing burdens and
improving efficiency. USDA's regulatory reform efforts, combined with
other reform efforts, will make it easier to invest, produce, and build
in rural America, which will lead to the creation of jobs and enhanced
economic prosperity. To achieve results, USDA is guided by the
following comprehensive set of priorities through which the Department,
its employees, and external partners will work to identify and
eliminate regulatory and administrative barriers and improve business
processes to enhance program delivery and reduce burdens on program
participants. These priorities include:
[rtarr8] Agricultural and Rural Prosperity Task Force: Executive
Order 13790--Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America
established the inter-Departmental Task Force chaired by Secretary
Perdue to identify opportunities for the Federal government to work
more effectively together for the benefit of rural Americans. The Task
Force is examining barriers to economic prosperity in rural America and
how innovation, infrastructure, and technology can assist agriculture
and help rural communities thrive. The Task Force is examining
regulations across the Federal government to identify obsolete,
inefficient, or unnecessary regulations that impede economic growth.
[rtarr8] Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF): In response to
Executive Order 13777--Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda and
Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs, which set forth expectations for reducing the regulatory burden
on the public, the Department has established an internal RRTF to
identify outdated regulations for elimination and administrative
processes for streamlining. The USDA RRTF is comprised of senior agency
managers representing all the major missions of the Department. USDA is
also soliciting public comments on recommended reforms through July
2018.
[rtarr8] Farm Bill Reform: As the 2014 Farm Bill will soon expire,
the Department is evaluating past practices to identify opportunities
for policy and technical improvements, and to make research available
so Congress can make facts-based, data-driven decisions to ensure a
robust agricultural economy and increased opportunities in rural areas.
Reauthorization of the Farm Bill provides an opportunity to introduce
program reforms to eliminate obsolete and underperforming programs,
simplify the administration of programs, and improve program outcomes.
[rtarr8] Organizational Reform: To ensure that USDA's programs,
agencies, and offices best serve the Department's customers, USDA is
implementing organizational changes that are targeted at improving
customer service. Through these reforms, USDA is breaking down
organizational barriers that have impeded the Department's ability to
most effectively and efficiently support its customers across the
Nation and around the world. Examples of the organizational reforms
include the establishment of an Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign
Agricultural Affairs to ensure that American agriculture benefits from
new and expanded trade opportunities and the consolidation of
administrative functions at the mission area level to eliminate
inefficiencies.
These reforms and strategies allow the Department to best support
the needs of its customers. Through the implementation of these
improvements, USDA will be better positioned to remove obstacles, and
give agricultural
[[Page 1676]]
producers every opportunity to prosper and feed a growing world
population. These improvements support the accomplishment of USDA's
mission to provide leadership on agriculture, food, natural resources,
rural prosperity, nutrition, and related issues through fact-based,
data-driven, and customer-focused decisions.
The Department's fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
reflects the Administration's commitment to regulatory reform and
USDA's rigorous implementation of Executive Orders 13777 and 13771.
Executive Order 13777
Executive Order 13777 establishes a Federal policy to lower
regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing
regulatory reform. The RRTF reviewed proposed, pending and existing
regulations to determine the deregulatory and regulatory actions to
include in the 2017 fall Regulatory Agenda. The RRTF identified over
270 reform initiatives, including 101 deregulatory actions that will
save the public from unnecessary regulatory burdens. These actions were
further evaluated to determine which ones should be made a priority
based on the impact of the proposals and the ability to complete the
action in FY 2018.
Executive Order 13777 also directed the Department to seek input
from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations. To satisfy
this requirement, the Department published a Request for Information
(RFI) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2017, seeking public input on
identifying regulatory reform initiatives (82 FR 32649). The RFI asked
the public to identify regulations, guidance documents, or any other
policy documents or administrative processes that need reform, as well
as ideas on how to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal such items.
While comments to the notice do not bind USDA to any further actions,
all submissions will be reviewed and will significantly inform actions
to repeal, replace, or modify existing regulations.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two existing
regulations for every new regulation while limiting the total costs
associated with an agency's regulations. Specifically, it requires a
regulatory two-for-one wherein an agency must propose the elimination
of two existing regulations for every new regulation it publishes.
Moreover, the costs associated with the new regulation must be
completely offset by cost savings brought about by deregulation.
The Department's 2017 fall Regulatory Agenda reflects the
Department's commitment to regulatory reform and continues USDA's
rigorous implementation of Executive Order 13771. The regulatory agenda
identifies 76 rules, of which 44 rules are deregulatory. The remaining
32 rules are not subject to the offsetting or deregulatory requirements
of Executive Order 13771. Of the total number of deregulatory actions,
USDA has identified 29 final rules that will be completed in FY 2018
and will result in a cost savings. Although we have not estimated the
savings for 26 of these actions, they are considered deregulatory
actions that USDA will implement to meet the direction that an agency
issues twice as many Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions as new
Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions.
USDA's 2017 fall Statement of Regulatory Priorities was developed
to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and
enforcing regulatory reform. These regulatory priorities will
contribute to the mission of the Department, the achievement of the
long-term goals the Department aims to accomplish. Highlights of how
the Department's regulatory reform efforts contribute to the
accomplishment of the Department's strategic goals include the
following:
A primary goal of the Department is to ensure that programs are
delivered efficiently, effectively, with integrity, and a focus on
customer service: To achieve this, USDA is working to leverage the
strength and talent of USDA employees with continued dedication to
data-driven enterprise solutions through collaborative governance and
human capital management strategies centered on accountability and
professional development. USDA will reduce regulatory and
administrative burdens hindering agencies from reaching the greatest
number of stakeholders. Improved customer service and employee
engagement within USDA will create a more effective and accessible
organization for all stakeholders.
[rtarr8] Streamline and expand public engagement in the development
and modification of national forest management policies: This final
rule will provide greater opportunity for public participation in the
formulation of standards, criteria and guidelines applicable to Forest
Service programs by: (1) Expanding the scope of documents subject to
such review; (2) utilizing technologies that were not available when
these regulations were last amended in 1984 to ensure a broader swath
of the interested public is notified of opportunities to review and
comment on policy changes; and (3) increasing the efficiency of the
directive revision process to reduce administrative costs and permit
more frequent and timely updates. For more information about this rule,
see RIN 0596-AC65.
[rtarr8] Streamline National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
implementing procedures: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) and the Forest Service are adjusting procedures that set out
the NEPA implementing procedures for each agency based on accumulated
experience of the agencies. APHIS will issue a proposed rule to
incorporate scientific data accumulated since 1995 on the environmental
impact of covered actions, clarify categories of action for which APHIS
would normally complete an environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment for an action, expand the list of actions
subject to categorical exclusion from further environmental
documentation, and set out an environmental documentation process for
use in emergencies. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-
AC60. The Forest Service will publish a proposed rule to eliminate
outdated requirements and revise aspects of the analysis framework,
scoping and public engagement, and determining significance. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0596-AD31.
[rtarr8] Establish de minimis exemptions for applying for animal
licenses and renewals under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA): The Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service will issue a final rule to exempt
entities with a small number of animals from the requirement to obtain
an AWA license. This action will reduce regulatory burden on small
entities while also allowing APHIS to target enforcement efforts where
they are most needed. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0579-AD99. Coupled with this de minimis rule, APHIS is considering a
proposed rule that would promote compliance with the AWA by (1)
reducing licensing fees and (2) strengthening existing safeguards that
prevent an individual whose license has been suspended or revoked, or
who has a history of noncompliance, from obtaining a license or working
with regulated animals. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0579-AE35
[rtarr8] Establish de minimis levels for enforcing Lacey Act
requirements: The
[[Page 1677]]
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to
provide, among other things, that importers submit a declaration at the
time of importation for certain plants and plant products. The
declaration requirements of the Lacey Act became effective on December
15, 2008, and enforcement of those requirements is being phased in.
APHIS will propose an exception to the declaration requirements for
products containing composite plant materials, and establish an
exception to the declaration requirement for products containing a
minimal amount of plant materials. Both actions would relieve the
burden on importers, while continuing to ensure that the declaration
requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AD44.
[rtarr8] Reduce the time it takes to issue housing loans. The
Housing Opportunity through Modernization Act of 2016 permits the
Secretary to delegate authority to approve and execute single family
housing loan guarantees directly to preferred lenders, those lenders
whose loans have performed well and who have demonstrated strong
underwriting capability. To take advantage of this authority, the Rural
Housing Service (RHS) will propose to delegate loan approval authority
to preferred lenders participating in the Single Family Housing
Guaranteed Loan Program. Preferred lenders would be responsible for
certifying that both the applicant and property meet all program
requirements and eligible for the guarantee. The revisions are expected
to shorten the loan approval and processing time by up to 12 days. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0575-AD08
The Department is making it a priority to maximize the ability of
American agricultural producers to prosper by feeding and clothing the
world: A strong and prosperous agricultural sector is essential to the
well-being of the overall U.S. economy. America's farmers and ranchers
ensure a safe and reliable food and fuel supply and support job growth
and economic development. To maintain a strong agricultural economy,
USDA will support farmers in starting and maintaining profitable farm
and ranch businesses, as well as offer support to producers affected by
natural disasters. The Department will continue to work to create new
markets and support a competitive agricultural system by reducing
barriers that inhibit agricultural opportunities and economic growth.
[rtarr8] Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Regarding the Introduction of
Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms: APHIS withdrew its proposed
rule to revise the Department's biotechnology regulations and will re-
engage with stakeholders to determine the most effective, science-based
approach for regulating the products of modern biotechnology while
protecting plant health. APHIS issued the proposed rule on January 19,
2017, and received 208 public comments. APHIS will maintain and follow
current biotechnology regulations for safely handling the importation,
interstate movement, and environmental release of genetically
engineered organisms as we re-engage with stakeholders to determine the
most effective approach for regulating these products. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE15.
[rtarr8] Implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard: This action is mandated by the National Bioengineered Food
Disclosure Standard (Law), which requires USDA to develop a national
standard and the procedures for its implementation within two years of
the Law's enactment. Pursuant to the law, AMS will propose requirements
that, if finalized, will serve as a national mandatory bioengineered
food disclosure standard for bioengineered food and food that may be
bioengineered. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD54.
[rtarr8] Withdrawal of the Scope of Sections 202(a) and (b) of the
Packers and Stockyards Act (Act) interim final rule: On December 20,
2016, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) published an interim rule addressing the scope of sections
202(a) and (b) of the Act, which enumerate unlawful practices under the
Act. The interim final rule was originally scheduled to become
effective on February 21, 2017. The effective date of the final rule
was delayed twice until October 19, 2017. On April 12, 2017, GIPSA
published a proposed rule requesting comments whether the final rule
should be allowed to go into effect. On October 18, 2017, GIPSA
published a final rule withdrawing the December 20, 2016, interim final
rule, ending the regulatory action. The interim final rule was found to
conflict with case law in several U.S. Court of Appeals Circuits, which
Congress has declined to overturn through legislation. Additionally,
the interim final rule was improperly issued without adequate notice
and opportunity for comment. For more information about this rule, see
RIN 0580-AB28.
[rtarr8] Re-evaluate the Organic Livestock and Poultry Program
final rule: Because of significant policy and legal issues within the
final rule (0581-AD44), the public was asked to comment on which of the
following four actions they believed would be best for USDA to take
with regard to the disposition of the final rule (0581-AD44). The
options were: Let the rule become effective on November 14, 2017;
Suspend the rule indefinitely; Delay the effective date of the rule
further, beyond the effective date of November 14, 2017; Withdraw the
rule so that USDA would not pursue implementation of the rule. Comments
were received on all four options. Based on the content of the comments
received and the evaluation those comments generated, the option to
delay the effective date further was chosen. For more information about
this rule, see RIN 0581-AD74. USDA plans to propose the final
disposition of 0581-AD44 in December 2017. For more information about
this rule, see RIN 0581-AD75.
[rtarr8] Updating plant pest regulations: APHIS is planning to
update regulations regarding the movement of plant pests to establish
criteria governing the movement and environmental release of biological
control organisms, and to establish regulations allowing the
importation and movement in interstate commerce of certain types of
plant pests without restriction by granting exceptions from permitting
requirements for those pests. These updates would include the movement
of soil. This action would clarify the factors that would be considered
when assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain
organisms and facilitates the movement of regulated organisms and
articles in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AC98.
[rtarr8] Establishing a performance standard for authorizing the
importation and interstate movement of fruits and vegetables: APHIS
would broaden the existing performance standard to provide for
consideration of all new fruits and vegetables for importation into the
United States using a notice-based process rather than through proposed
and final rules. Likewise, APHIS would propose an equivalent revision
of the performance standard governing the interstate movements of
fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. territories (Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and
the removal of commodity-specific phytosanitary requirements from those
regulations. This action will allow for the consideration of requests
to authorize the importation or interstate movement of new fruits and
vegetables
[[Page 1678]]
in a manner that enables a more flexible and responsive regulatory
approach to evolving pest situations in both the United States and
exporting countries. It will not, however, alter the science-based
process in which the risk associated with importation or interstate
movement of a given fruit or vegetable is evaluated or the manner in
which risks associated with the importation or interstate movement of a
fruit or vegetable are mitigated. For more information about this rule,
see RIN 0579-AD71.
Providing all Americans access to a safe, nutritious, and secure
food supply is USDA's most important responsibility, and it is one
undertaken with great seriousness. USDA has critical roles in
preventing foodborne illness and protecting public health, while
ensuring Americans have access to food and healthful diet. The
Department will continue to prevent contamination and limit foodborne
illness by expanding its modernization of food inspection systems, and
USDA's research, education, and extension programs will continue to
provide information, tools, and technologies about the causes of
foodborne illness and its prevention. USDA will continue to develop
partnerships that support best practices in implementing effective
nutrition assistance programs that ensure eligible populations have
access to programs that support their food needs.
[rtarr8] Increase flexibilities provided to school lunch program
operators in meeting nutrition requirements: The Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) plans to issue an interim final rule that provides
flexibilities consistent with those currently available to Program
operators participating in the Child Nutrition Programs beginning in
School Year 2018-2019. These flexibilities include: (1) Providing
operators the option to offer flavored, low-fat (1 percent fat) milk in
the Child Nutrition Programs; (2) extending the State agencies' option
to allow individual school food authorities to include grains that are
not whole grain-rich in the weekly menu offered under the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP); and (3)
revising the sodium reduction timeline for the NSLP and SBP. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE53.
[rtarr8] Improve effectiveness and efficiency of moving individuals
into work: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) establishes a time
limit for participation in SNAP of three months in three years for
able-bodied adults without children who are not working. FNA allows
states to waive the time limit under certain circumstances. FNS would
request public input on a proposed framework for modifying ABAWD time-
limit waivers with the goal of moving individuals to work as the best
solution for poverty, and to advance this goal consistent with the
structure and the intent of the act. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0584-AE57.
[rtarr8] Provide regulatory flexibility for retailers in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): FNS will issue a
proposed rule to modify the definition of the term ``variety'' as it
pertains to the stocking requirements for certain SNAP authorized
retail food stores to increase the number of items that qualify as
acceptable varieties in the four staple food categories, meat, poultry,
fish, and dairy products. This proposed change will provide retailers
with more flexibility in meeting the enhanced SNAP eligibility
requirements of the 2016 final rule and meet the requirements expressed
in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2017. For more information
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE61.
[rtarr8] Reduce the reporting burden for nutrition program
operators: FNS will withdraw the interim final rule provisions of the
SNAP: Certification, Eligibility, and Employment and Training
Provisions of the Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008 rule
published on January 6, 2017. The interim final rule portion increased
requirements for Group Living Arrangements and Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Centers. Comments received on these changes indicated that
the regulatory change presented significant technical and
administrative challenges. For more information about this rule, see
RIN 0584-AE54.
[rtarr8] Modernize swine slaughter inspection: The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to establish a voluntary New
Swine Inspection System (NSIS) for market-hog slaughter establishments,
and mandatory provisions for all swine slaughtering establishments
(i.e., including those that also slaughter roaster swine, sows, and
boars). NSIS will provide for increased offline inspection activities
that are more directly related to food safety resulting in greater
compliance with sanitation and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) regulations and reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
NSIS would also provide incentives to establishments to improve their
processing methods and to develop more efficient slaughter and dressing
technologies. Additionally, FSIS is considering requiring
establishments to implement written sanitary dressing plans to prevent
contamination of carcasses throughout the slaughter and dressing
operation; modernizing process control sampling programs; and sampling
the slaughter environment for microbiological contamination. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD62.
[rtarr8] Modernize egg products inspection: FSIS is proposing to
replace current regulations with HACCP Systems and Sanitation Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs), consistent with HACCP and Sanitation SOP
requirements in the meat and poultry products inspection regulations.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to remove the current requirements for
prior approval by FSIS of egg products plant drawings, specifications,
and equipment prior to their use in official plants, provide for the
generic labeling of egg products, and require safe handling labels on
shell eggs and egg products. The agency is also proposing to move from
continuous inspection to daily inspection of establishments. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AC58.
USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
1. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-216; 7 U.S.C. 1621 to 1627
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1285.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On July 29, 2016, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
was amended to establish a National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard (Law) (Pub. L. 114-216). Pursuant to the law, this NPRM will
propose requirements that, if finalized, will serve as a national
mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard for bioengineered food
and food that may be bioengineered.
Statement of Need: This action is mandated by Public Law 114-216.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided
by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by Public Law 114-
216.
Alternatives: The alternatives will be identified during the
drafting stage and the public will be given the opportunity to comment
on alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will fulfill the mandate
of Public
[[Page 1679]]
Law 114-216. The specific costs and benefits will be determined during
the drafting of the proposed rule. AMS is striving to fulfill the
mandate while minimizing the burden on the regulated community.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17 .......................
Final Action........................ 07/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: Arthur Neal, Deputy Administrator, Transportation
and Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Phone: 202 692-1300.
RIN: 0581-AD54
USDA--AMS
2. NOP: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule,
published on January 19, 2017, adds provisions to the USDA organic
regulations to address livestock and poultry living conditions, health
care practices, and animal handling and transport, and during
slaughter. The final rule was originally scheduled to become effective
on March 20, 2017; the effective date was subsequently delayed to May
19, 2017. AMS published a notice further delaying the effective date to
November 14, 2017. Per a document published on November 14, 2017, the
January 2017 rule was further delayed to May 14, 2018. As stated within
the November 2017 publication, this proposed rule requests public
comments on: (1) The scope of the Secretary's authority under of the
Organic Foods Production Act including 7 U.S.C. 6509; (2) whether the
requirements in the final rule are the most innovative and least
burdensome tool for meeting regulatory objectives; and, (3) whether the
revised benefits calculations, which corrected a mathematical error in
the final rule, justify the estimated costs.
Statement of Need: This action is needed to ensure only regulations
that are properly supported by legislative authority and requirements
of executive orders are met.
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: As AMS evaluates the concerns outlined in the
abstract, the possible outcomes of the evaluation range from allowing
the January 2017 final rule to become effective to withdrawing the
January 2017 final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: AMS estimated that the discounted
costs, transfers, and benefits of the January 2017 final rule, for
three different producer response scenarios, would range from $8.2 to
$31 million annually due to increased compliance and regulatory
burdens. In addition, there is also an estimated $3.9 million
undiscounted annual paperwork burden. AMS also estimated transfers
ranging from $80 to $86 million annually caused by producers exiting
the organic market. AMS estimates the benefits would range from $3.3 to
$31.6 million for all producer response scenarios when the mathematical
error is corrected.
Risks: This action is likely to be contentious.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jennifer Tucker, Associate Deputy Administrator,
USDA National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3252.
Related RIN: Related to 0581-AD44, Related to 0581-AD74
RIN: 0581-AD75
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
3. Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De Minimis Exception and Composite
Articles
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 357.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended
the Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a
declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant
products. The declaration requirements of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of those requirements
is being phased in. We are proposing an exception to the declaration
requirements for products containing composite plant materials. We are
also proposing to establish an exception to the declaration requirement
for products containing a minimal amount of plant materials. Both of
these actions would relieve the burden on importers while continuing to
ensure that the declaration requirement fulfills the purposes of the
Lacey Act.
Statement of Need: Will update.
Summary of Legal Basis: Will update.
Alternatives: Will update.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will update.
Risks: Will update.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 06/30/11 76 FR 38330
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 08/29/11 .......................
NPRM................................ 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, Permitting and
Compliance Coordination, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 60, Riverdale,
MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-2351.
RIN: 0579-AD44
[[Page 1680]]
USDA--APHIS
Final Rule Stage
4. National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 372.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We are amending the regulations that set out our National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures. The amendments
will clarify when we will complete an environmental impact statement or
an environmental analysis for an action, provide additional categories
of actions for which we will prepare such documents, expand the list of
actions subject to categorical exclusion from further environmental
documentation, and set out an environmental documentation process that
could be used in emergencies. The changes are intended to update the
regulations and improve their clarity and effectiveness.
Statement of Need: APHIS' NEPA regulations were last amended in
1995. The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1507.3(a) indicate that agencies ``shall
continue to review their policies and procedures and in consultation
with the Council to revise them as necessary to ensure full compliance
with the purposes and provisions of the Act.'' Accordingly, we have
evaluated our regulations and identified changes that would clarify the
regulations, make them more consistent with NEPA, and allow us greater
flexibility in fulfilling the requirements of NEPA and CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations while responding to immediate disease and pest
threats or damage to the environment.
Summary of Legal Basis: The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), is the United States'
basic charter for protection of the environment. Consistent with NEPA
and with the requirements of CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations,
APHIS' NEPA regulations provide guidance, sources of information and
assistance, definitions, classifications of action, identification of
major planning and decision points, opportunities for public
involvement, and methods of processing different types of environmental
documents.
Alternatives: Leaving the regulations unchanged would be
unsatisfactory because it would perpetuate the current situation; i.e.,
one in which the current regulations, last amended in 1995, are
outdated and in need of clarification. Another alternative would be to
establish criteria for categorical exclusion that are less (or more)
restrictive, thus increasing (or decreasing) the number of actions
eligible for categorical exclusion.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: APHIS has determined that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Some entities will experience
time and money savings, but the savings should benefit only a few
entities each year. The proposal would also serve to clarify the
regulations and make the NEPA process more transparent, which, although
beneficial, should not have a significant economic impact on affected
entities.
Risks: Not Applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM............................... 07/20/16 81 FR 47051
NPRM Comment Period End............ 09/19/16
Final Rule......................... 03/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Eileen Sutker, APHIS Federal NEPA Contact,
Environmental and Risk Analysis Services, PPD, Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, Phone: 301 851-3043.
RIN: 0579-AC60
USDA--APHIS
5. Animal Welfare; Establishing De Minimis Exemptions From Licensing
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress amended the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA) to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the
authority to determine what facilities and activities involving AWA
regulated animals are de minimis and therefore exempt from licensure
and oversight. We are amending the AWA regulations to enact this new
provision. This change provides APHIS with the flexibility to exempt
from licensing those dealers and exhibitors who provide adequate levels
of humane care to their animals, allowing us to target our enforcement
resources where they are most needed. Dealers and exhibitors operating
at or below the threshold will be exempted from APHIS licensing and
oversight under the AWA.
Statement of Need: A 2014 Farm Bill amendment to the Animal Welfare
Act provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to
determine when animal dealers and exhibitors are not required to obtain
a license under the Act, if the size of the business conducting AWA-
related activities is determined by the Secretary to be de minimis.
This rule is necessary to establish the thresholds for what constitutes
a de minimis level of activity.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 Farm Bill
(Pub. L. 113-79), section 12308, which amended section 3 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133).
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By the very nature of this proposal,
all entities that would be affected are considered small. The entities
most likely to be affected by this proposal are businesses engaged in
AWA-related exhibition activities that have small numbers of regulated
animals. This proposed rule would relieve regulatory responsibilities
for some currently licensed entities and reduce the cost of business
for those entities. Those currently licensed exhibitors, breeders, and
dealers who are under the proposed de minimis thresholds would no
longer be subject to licensing, animal identification and recordkeeping
requirements.
Risks: Establishing de minimis thresholds in this proposal would
allow APHIS to direct inspection and enforcement efforts on higher risk
entities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/04/16 81 FR 51386
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/02/16
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Kay Carter-Corker, Director, National Policy Staff,
Animal
[[Page 1681]]
Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-
3748.
RIN: 0579-AD99
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Final Rule Stage
6. Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and
Sodium Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1758; 42 U.S.C. 1766; 42 U.S.C. 1772; 42
U.S.C. 1773; 42 U.S.C. 1779
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210.10; 7 CFR 210.11; 7 CFR 215.7a; 7 CFR
220.8; 7 CFR 226.20.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This interim final rule provides flexibilities consistent
with those currently available by Congressional directive to program
operators participating in the Child Nutrition Programs for School Year
2018-2019. These flexibilities include: (1) Providing operators the
option to offer flavored, low-fat (one percent fat) milk in the Child
Nutrition Programs; (2) extending the State agencies' option to allow
individual school food authorities to include grains that are not whole
grain-rich in the weekly menu offered under the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP); and (3) revising the
sodium reduction timeline for the NSLP and SBP.
Statement of Need: Will update.
Summary of Legal Basis: Will update.
Alternatives: Will update.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will update.
Risks: Will update.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/30/17 82 FR 56703
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 01/29/18
End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 07/01/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: School Lunch--NSLA Section 9(a)(1)--42
U.S.C. 1758(a)(1). Child and Adult Care Food Program--NSLA Section
17(g)--42 U.S.C. 1766(g) Special Milk Program--Child Nutrition Act
Section 3(a)(1)--42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1). School Breakfast Program--Child
Nutrition Act Section 4(e)(1)(A)--42 U.S.C. 1773(e)(1)(A). Smart Snacks
in Schools--Child Nutrition Act Section 10(b)--42 U.S.C. 1779(b).
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-AE53
USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
7. Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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:
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 proposed regulations are
expected to benefit establishments by removing unnecessary regulatory
obstacles to innovation and allowing establishments more flexibility in
line configuration. The proposed changes are also expected to reduce
establishments' sampling costs. Additionally, the proposed regulations
are expected to improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter
inspection, leading to a reduction in the number of human illnesses
attributed to products derived from market hogs. The proposed actions
make better use of the Agency's resources, which is expected to reduce
the Agency's personnel and training budgetary requirements.
Establishments are expected to incur increased labor and recordkeeping
costs.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, Director, Issuances Staff,
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office
of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-0345, Fax: 202 690-0486,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD62
USDA--FOREST SERVICE (FS)
Final Rule Stage
8. Administrative Issuances; Involving the Public in the Formulation of
Forest Service Directives (Rule)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1612(a)
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 2.7; 36 CFR 200.4; 36 CFR 216.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This procedural final rule will provide greater
opportunity for public participation in the formulation of standards,
criteria and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs by: (1)
Expanding the scope of documents subject to such review; (2) utilizing
technologies that were not available when these regulations were last
amended in 1984 to ensure a broader swath of the interested public is
notified of opportunities to review and comment on policy changes; and
(3) increasing the efficiency of the directive revision process to
reduce administrative costs and permit more frequent and timely
updates. Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule is issued as a
final rule as it imposes no additional burdens on any governmental
[[Page 1682]]
entity or the public but expands the ability of such parties to comment
upon the issuance of Agency policies set forth in Forest Service rules
and guidance.
Statement of Need: Will update.
Summary of Legal Basis: Will update.
Alternatives: Will update.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will update.
Risks: Will update.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Michael Migliori, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-2496, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0596-AC65
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:
1. 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;
2. Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small
manufacturers;
3. Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace
by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for U.S.
businesses, advancing free, fair, and reciprocal trade, and ensuring
that technology transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and
security interests;
4. Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's
resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and
5. Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding
of the economy by providing accurate economic and demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, tireless advocate, and Cabinet-
level voice for job creation. This Regulatory Plan tracks the most
important regulations that implement these policy and program
priorities, as well as new efforts by the Department to remove
unnecessary regulatory burdens on external stakeholders.
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 2018. 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.
Commerce has implemented Executive Order 13771 working through its
Regulatory Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to
identify and prioritize deregulatory actions that each bureau within
the Department can take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on
stakeholders.
In Fiscal Year 2018, Commerce expects to publish approximately 2
regulatory actions and over 30 deregulatory actions, far exceeding the
requirement under Executive Order 13771 to publish two deregulatory
actions for every one regulatory action. Additionally, Commerce's
Regulatory Reform Task Force will continue working to execute
directives under Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline
regulatory process and permitting reviews for new energy and
infrastructure projects. To that end, Commerce may have other
deregulatory actions to implement that do not currently appear in the
agenda.
Regulatory reform and agency streamlining are key elements to
Commerce's agenda for the next year. Senior policy analysis,
performance measurements, and employee evaluations will incorporate
these priorities as the Department continues to regulate private
industry through multiple bureaus within the agency.
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.
[[Page 1683]]
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; conserving, protecting,
and recovering threatened and endangered marine and anadromous species
and marine mammals 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 the impacts of a changing
climate 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 2018, a number of the regulatory and deregulatory
actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is
unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight
regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for
preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for
drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues
regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is
triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent
deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking
responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory
species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed
directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing
opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and
addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is
preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of
fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch
shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and
which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the
best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit
for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel
participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include
staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear
conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area
closures to protect fishery stocks.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process,
including the selection of the preferred management measures,
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP,
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to
amending an existing approved FMP.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the
take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental
take of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified
activity (e.g., oil and gas development, pile driving) within a
specified geographic region. NMFS authorizes incidental take under the
MMPA if we find that the taking would be of small numbers, have no more
than a ``negligible impact'' on those marine mammal species or stock,
and would not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
availability of the species or stock for ``subsistence'' uses. NMFS
also initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to establish a management
regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries as a result of
interactions with fisheries. In addition, 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, and
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
[[Page 1684]]
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, Federal agencies
consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried
out by that agency that may affect listed species or designated
critical habitat, or that may affect proposed species or critical
habitat. These interagency consultations are designed to assist Federal
agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, while still allowing Federal agencies to
fulfill their respective missions (e.g., permitting infrastructure
projects or oil and gas exploration, conducting military readiness
activities).
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 four 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 four regulatory plan
actions is provided below.
Additionally, NMFS is undertaking a series of rulemakings that are
considered deregulatory, as defined by Executive Order 13771. Such
actions directly benefit the regulated community by increasing access,
providing more economic opportunity, reducing costs, and/or increasing
flexibility. A specific example of such an action is the Commerce
Trusted Trader Program, as described below. Other examples include
actions implementing FMPs that alleviate or reduce previous
requirements.
1. Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing; Fisheries
Enforcement; High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act
(0648-BG11): The U.S. is a signatory to the Port State Measures
Agreement (PSMA). The agreement is aimed at combatting illegal,
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities by increased port
inspection for foreign fishing vessels and closing seafood markets to
the products of illegal fishing. Benefits of the rule will accrue when
IUU vessels are denied entry to the U.S., and illegal seafood products
are precluded from the U.S. supply chain, thereby maintaining higher
prices and market share for legitimate producers of fishery products.
2. Commerce Trusted Trader Program (0648-BG51): Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, importation of fish
products taken in violation of foreign law and regulation is
prohibited. To enforce this prohibition, NMFS has implemented the
Seafood Import Monitoring Program (81 FR 88975, December 9, 2016) which
requires U.S. importers to report on the origin of fish products and to
keep supply chain records. The Commerce Trusted Trader Program will
establish a voluntary program for certified seafood importers that
provides benefits such as reduced targeting and inspections, and
enhanced streamlined entry into the United States. The program will
require that a Commerce Trusted Trader establish a secure supply chain
and maintain the records necessary to verify the legality of all
designated product entering into U.S. commerce, but it will excuse the
Commerce Trusted Trader from entering that data into the International
Trade Data System prior to entry, as required by Seafood Import
Monitoring Program. This program is deregulatory in nature because it
reduces reporting costs at entry and reduces recordkeeping costs due to
flexibility in archiving.
3. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-BB38):
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the ``take'' (e.g.,
behavioral harassment, injury, or mortality) of marine mammals with
certain exceptions, including through the issuance of incidental take
authorizations. Where there is a reasonable likelihood of an activity
resulting in the take of marine mammals--as is the case for certain
methods of geophysical exploration, including the use of airgun arrays
(i.e., ``seismic surveys'')--action proponents must ensure that take
occurs in a lawful manner. However, there has not previously been any
analysis of industry survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico conducted
pursuant to requirements of MMPA, and industry operators have been, and
currently are, conducting their work without MMPA incidental take
authorizations. In support of the oil and gas industry, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management has requested 5-year incidental take
regulations, which would provide a regulatory framework under which
individual companies could apply for project-specific Letters of
Authorization. Providing for industry compliance with the MMPA through
the requested regulatory framework, versus companies pursuing
individual authorizations, would be the most efficient way to achieve
such compliance for both industry and for NMFS, and would provide
regulatory certainty for industry operators.
4. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Threatened Caribbean and Indo-Pacific Reef-building Corals
(0648-BG26): Caribbean and Indo-Pacific reef building corals were
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in September 2014.
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
these corals 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. This action would
designate new critical habitat for twelve corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus,
Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, Orbicella franksi,
Mycetophyllia ferox, Acropora globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae,
Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora
crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata) and revise the 2008 critical
habitat designation for two corals (Acropora palmata and Acropora
cervicornis).
BIS
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national
security,
[[Page 1685]]
foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and
strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and
treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to
prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to
protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
Major Programs and Activities
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also
regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered
by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base
Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require
reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales,
provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base
to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on
the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention
Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection
requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States
treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The
Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with
respect to an agreement between the United States and the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering
the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at
several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S.
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to
promote effective export controls through cooperation with other
Governments
BIS's Regulatory Plan Action
BIS maintains the EAR, including the Commerce Control List (CCL).
The CCL describes commodities, software, and technology that are
subject to licensing requirements for specific reasons for control. The
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC),
maintains the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR),
including the United States Munitions List (USML), which describes
defense articles subject to State's licensing jurisdiction.
In Fiscal Year 2018, BIS plans to publish a proposed rule
describing how articles the President has determined no longer warrant
control under USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and
Combat Shotguns), Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III
(Ammunition/Ordnance) would be controlled on the CCL and by the EAR.
This proposed rule will be published in conjunction with a DDTC
proposed rule that would amend the list of articles controlled by those
USML Categories to describe more precisely items warranting continued
control on that list.
The changes that will be described in these proposed rules are
based on a review of those categories by the Department of Defense,
which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing
the amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of
articles that are now controlled on the USML that are either (i)
inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML or (ii)
if of a type common to non-military firearms applications, possess
parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or
intelligence advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively
available from the United States. If an article satisfies one or both
of those criteria, the article will remain on the USML. If an article
does not satisfy either criterion, it will be identified in the new
Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in the BIS
proposed rule. Thus, the scope of the items that will be described in
the proposed rule is essentially commercial items widely available in
retail outlets and less sensitive military items.
Although the firearms and other items described in the proposed
rule are widely used for sporting applications, BIS will not propose to
``de-control'' these items. BIS would require licenses to export or
reexport to any country a firearm or other weapon that would be added
to the CCL by the proposed rule. Rather than decontrolling firearms and
other items, in publishing the proposed rule, BIS, working with the
Departments of Defense and State, is trying to reduce the procedural
burdens and costs of export compliance on the U.S. firearms industry
while allowing the U.S. Government to control firearms appropriately
and to make better use of its export control resources.
United States Patent Trademark Office
The United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) mission is
to foster innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically
and abroad by delivering high quality and timely examination of patent
and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international
intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property
information and education worldwide.
Major Programs and Activities
USPTO is the Federal agency for granting U.S. patents and
registering trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO fulfills the mandate
of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the
legislative branch ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' The USPTO
registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Under this system of protection,
American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new
uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for
millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy
depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and
investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for
patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors
and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the nation's
technological progress and achievement.
The USPTO advises the President of the United States, the Secretary
of Commerce, and U.S. government agencies on intellectual property (IP)
policy, protection, and enforcement; and promotes the stronger and more
effective IP protection around the world. The USPTO furthers effective
IP protection for U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs worldwide by
working with other agencies to secure strong IP provisions in free
trade and other international agreements. It also provides training,
education, and capacity building programs designed to foster respect
for IP and encourage the development of strong IP enforcement regimes
by U.S. trading partners. USPTO administers regulations located at
title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning its patent and
trademark services, and the other functions it performs.
USPTO's Regulatory Plan Action
Final Rule: Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year
2017 (RIN 0651-AD02): The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
enacted in 2011, provided USPTO with the authority to set and adjust
its fees for
[[Page 1686]]
patent and trademark services. In early 2013, USPTO issued a final
rule, ``Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees'' (RIN 0651-AC54, 78 FR 4212,
Jan. 18, 2013), in which USPTO for the first time set a new fee
structure for patent services using the authority provided by Section
10 of the AIA. Since then, USPTO has conducted an internal biennial fee
review, in which it undertook internal consideration of the current fee
structure, and considering ways that the structure might be improved,
including rulemaking pursuant to the USPTO's fee setting authority.
This fee review process involved public outreach, including, as
required by the Act, public hearings held by the USPTO's Public
Advisory Committees (which were held in late 2015), as well as public
comment and other outreach to the user community and public in general.
In October 2016, USPTO published an NPRM proposing the setting and
adjusting of patent fees. The comment period for that propose rule
closed on December 2, 2016. Per E.O. 12866, this NPRM was determined to
be economically significant. USPTO has reviewed all public comments
received and considered made revisions to its proposed fee adjustments
based on those comments. USPTO is now in the process of preparing a
final rule that will set and adjust patent fees. In this final rule,
the USPTO will set and adjust Patent fee amounts to provide the Office
with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate
cost of operations while helping the Office maintain a sustainable
funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease
patent pendency, improve quality, and upgrade the Office's business
information technology capability and infrastructure. USPTO anticipates
publishing this rule in the fall of 2017, with new fees to be effective
60 days after the rule publishes.
The Economic Development Administration
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides assistance
to economically distressed communities in order to stimulate commercial
growth, improve infrastructure, and generate employment opportunities.
Over the next year, EDA will continue to implement grants and
assistance programs that achieve the agency's mission, in line with
statutory authority, and also support the President's agenda.
Accordingly, EDA's regulatory activities target new efforts to
streamline and simplify agency process.
EDA's Regulatory Action Plan
EDA published a final rule that focused on improving and
modernizing EDA's oversight of its Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Program
under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended
(PWEDA). The RLF Program provides grants to eligible recipients, such
as local governments and non-profit organizations, to operate lending
programs that offer low-interest loans and flexible repayment terms,
primarily to small businesses in distressed communities that are unable
to obtain traditional bank financing. The final rule implemented a
risk-based oversight approach that has improved EDA oversight of the
RLF Program, consistent with recommendations from the Department's
Office of Inspector General. In particular, EDA's shift to a modern
risk analysis system concentrates EDA's limited oversight resources on
those RLFs at greatest risk and simultaneously reduced compliance
burdens on successful RLFs.
EDA's transition to risk-based monitoring of the RLF Program is
expected to result in more efficient and effective oversight of the RLF
Program through reduced reporting, compliance, and monitoring costs of
approximately $960,000 each year. For this reason, the final rule was a
``deregulatory action'' under Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' These regulatory changes
were necessary regardless of whether EDA continues to operate or if EDA
were to be eliminated by Congress as requested in the President's
Fiscal Year 2018 Budget because the Department is under an obligation
to administer and monitor RLF grants in perpetuity under current
statutory authorities. The regulatory changes made by the Final Rule
would enable EDA or the Department to more efficiently manage the
residual RLF portfolio going forward.
The final rule also effectuated important, but less comprehensive,
updates to other parts of EDA's regulations implementing PWEDA that
enable EDA or the Department to more effectively oversee the non-RLF
grant portfolio, even in the event of EDA's elimination by Congress.
These non-RLF PWEDA regulations ensure that grantees continue to use
projects for the purpose originally funded and to eventually execute
releases of the Federal interest in the property at the expiration of
the useful life, often 20 years after the date of the grant award.
DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
9. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Gulf of Mexico
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 217.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service is taking this
action in response to an October 17, 2016, application from the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) to promulgate regulations and issue Letters of
Authorization to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas industry
sponsored seismic surveys for purposes of geophysical exploration on
the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico from approximately
2018 through 2023. BOEM states that underwater activities associated
with sound sources (i.e., airguns, boomers, sparkers, and chirpers) may
expose marine mammals in the area to noise and pressure.
Statement of Need: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
prohibits the ``take'' (e.g., behavioral harassment, injury, or
mortality) of marine mammals with certain exceptions, including through
the issuance of incidental take authorizations. Where there is a
reasonable likelihood of an activity resulting in the take of marine
mammals--as is the case for certain methods of geophysical exploration,
including the use of airgun arrays (i.e., ``seismic surveys'')--action
proponents must ensure that take occurs in a lawful manner. However,
there has not previously been any analysis of industry survey
activities in the Gulf of Mexico conducted pursuant to requirements of
MMPA, and industry operators have been, and currently are, conducting
their work without MMPA incidental take authorizations. In support of
the oil and gas industry, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
has requested five-year incidental take regulations, which would
provide a regulatory framework under which individual companies could
apply for project-specific letters of authorization. Providing for
industry compliance with the MMPA through the requested regulatory
framework, versus companies pursuing individual authorizations would be
the most efficient way to
[[Page 1687]]
achieve such compliance for both industry and for NMFS, and would
provide regulatory certainty for industry operators.
Summary of Legal Basis: Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Alternatives: While the MMPA does not require consideration of
alternatives in rulemaking, the regulatory impact analysis considers a
more stringent and less stringent regulatory alternative. The more
stringent alternative would require more mitigation of industry
authorization-holders. The less stringent alternative is the basis for
the proposed rule. As an alternative to regulation, individual
companies could request specific permits known as incidental harassment
authorizations (IHA). However, these permits require approximately six
to nine months to obtain (compared with an anticipated less than three
months to obtain letters of authorization under a rule), are
information-intensive in terms of the required application, and require
a public comment period. They also must be renewed on a yearly basis,
whereas a Letter of Authorization lasts for five years.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would include
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, as required by the
MMPA. However, as the proposed rule would alleviate other current
regulatory requirements that would otherwise be expected to cost 37.8
to 230 million dollars per year, it is estimated to result in a net
annualized savings of 8 to 123 million dollars (the range of values
reflects ranges of projected future activity levels). The proposed rule
would result in additional indirect (non-monetized) costs as a result
of the imposition of time-area restrictions on survey effort. However,
these costs are expected to be minimal, as two of three proposed
restrictions are in areas with low to no levels of activity and a
third, which has been in place under current baseline conditions, is
seasonal and therefore may be planned around. The proposed rule would
also result in certain non-monetized benefits. The protection of marine
mammals afforded by this rule (pursuant to the requirements of the
MMPA) would benefit the regional economic value of marine mammals via
tourism and recreation to some extent, as mitigation measures applied
to geophysical survey activities in the GOM region are expected to
benefit the marine mammal populations that support this economic
activity in the GOM. The proposed rule would also afford significant
benefit to the regulated industry by providing an efficient framework
within which compliance with the MMPA, and the attendant regulatory
certainty, may be achieved. Cost savings may be generated in particular
by the reduced administrative effort required to obtain an LOA under
the framework established by a rule compared to what would be required
to obtain an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. Absent the rule, survey operators in the GOM
would likely be required to apply for an IHA. Although not monetized,
NMFS' analysis indicates that the upfront work associated with the rule
(e.g., analyses, modeling, process for obtaining LOA) would likely save
significant time and money for operators.
Risks: Absent the rule, oil and gas industry operators would face a
highly uncertain regulatory environment due to the imminent threat of
litigation. BOEM currently issues permits under a stay of ongoing
litigation, in the absence of the proposed rule the litigation would
continue and NMFS would be added as a defendant. The IHA application
process that would be available to companies would be more expensive
and time-consuming.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
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-BB38
DOC--NOAA
10. Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing; Fisheries
Enforcement; High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-81
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule will make conforming amendments to
regulations implementing the various statutes amended by the Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L.
114-81). The Act amends several regional fishery management
organization implementing statutes as well as the High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. It also provides authority to
implement two new international agreements the Antigua Convention,
which amends the Convention for the establishment of an Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Port State
Measures Agreement), which restricts the entry into U.S. ports by
foreign fishing vessels that are known to be or are suspected of
engaging in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This proposed
rule will also implement the Port State Measures Agreement. To that
end, this proposed rule will require the collection of certain
information from foreign fishing vessels requesting permission to use
U.S. ports. It also includes procedures to designate and publicize the
ports to which foreign fishing vessels may seek entry and procedures
for conducting inspections of these foreign vessels accessing U.S.
ports. Further, the rule establishes procedures for notification of:
The denial of port entry or port services for a foreign vessel, the
withdrawal of the denial of port services if applicable, the taking of
enforcement action with respect to a foreign vessel, or the results of
any inspection of a foreign vessel to the flag nation of the vessel and
other competent authorities as appropriate.
Statement of Need: The United States is a signatory to the Port
State Measures Agreement (PSMA). The agreement is aimed at combatting
illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities by
increased port inspection for foreign fishing vessels and closing
seafood markets to the products of illegal fishing.
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Alternatives: Alternatives to taking action at the port would
include taking action at sea against IUU fishing vessels and in the
supply chain against IUU fishing products. At-sea monitoring and
inspection is part of an overall strategy to combat IUU fishing, but it
is extremely expensive and resources are limited. Likewise, tracing and
removing illegal products already released into the market would be
difficult and resource intensive. Preventing entry of IUU fishing
vessels into ports or
[[Page 1688]]
investigating fishing vessels at the port is an efficient and effective
approach to combatting illegal activity.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs will be
minimal in that foreign vessels requesting permission to visit U.S.
ports will have to include more information about the vessel and its
cargo when they submit an electronic notice of arrival to the U.S.
Coast Guard. Based on the information submitted, NMFS may deny port
privileges for vessels known to have engaged in illegal fishing or to
meet the vessel to conduct an inspection. The minimal additional data
elements required of foreign fishing vessels will be submitted
electronically through the existing U.S. Coast Guard system for notices
of Arrival and Departure, thus reporting costs are not anticipated to
affect shipping patterns, port usage, or international commerce. In
addition, vessel inspections will be coordinated and planned based on
the notice of arrival submitted prior to entry into port, thus delays
for inspection will be minimal and not result in significant costs to
legitimate vessels. Benefits of the rule will accrue when IUU vessels
are denied entry, and illegal seafood products are precluded from the
U.S. supply chain, thereby maintaining higher prices and market share
for legitimate producers of fishery products.
Risks: If the port entry reporting and inspection provisions of
this rule were not implemented, there is an increased risk of IUU
fishing vessels entering U.S. ports and/or the products of IUU fishing
infiltrating the U.S. supply chain. In addition, the U.S. would be out
of compliance with its international obligation under the PSMA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 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].
RIN: 0648-BG11
DOC--NOAA
11. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat
for Threatened Caribbean and Indo-Pacific Reef-Building Corals
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
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). The proposed
designation would cover coral reef habitat around 17 island or atoll
units in the Pacific Islands Region, including four in American Samoa,
one in Guam, seven in the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and five
in Pacific Remote Island Areas, containing essential features that
support reproduction, growth, and survival of the listed coral species.
This rule also proposes to designate critical habitat for the five
Caribbean corals and proposed to revise critical habitat for two,
previously-listed corals, Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis.
Statement of Need: Caribbean and Indo-Pacific reef building corals
were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in September 2014.
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
these corals 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. This action would
designate new critical habitat for twelve corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus,
Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, Orbicella franksi,
Mycetophyllia ferox, Acropora globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae,
Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora
crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata) and revise the 2008 critical
habitat designation for two corals (Acropora palmata and Acropora
cervicornis).
Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
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 these coral species. Based on our draft
impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule, we excluded one area in
Florida, one area in Guam, and two areas in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands for national security impacts. 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.
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 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 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................................ 03/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1689]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
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.
Related RIN: Merged with 0648-BG20
RIN: 0648-BG26
DOC--NOAA
12. Commerce Trusted Trader Program
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will establish a voluntary Commerce Trusted
Trader Program for importers, aiming to provide benefits such as
reduced targeting and inspections and enhanced streamlined entry into
the United States for certified importers. Specifically, this rule
would establish the criteria required of a Commerce Trusted Trader, and
identify specifically how the program will be monitored and by whom. It
will require that a Commerce Trusted Trader establish a secure supply
chain and maintain the records necessary to verify the legality of all
designated product entering into U.S. commerce, but will excuse the
Commerce Trusted Trader from entering that data into the International
Trade Data System prior to entry, as required by Seafood Import
Monitoring Program (finalized on December 9, 2016). The rule will
identify the benefits available to a Commerce Trusted Trader, detail
the application process, and specify how the Commerce Trusted Trader
will be audited by third-party entities while the overall program will
be monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Statement of Need: Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, importation of fish products taken in violation of
foreign law and regulation is prohibited. To enforce this prohibition,
NMFS has implemented the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (81 FR
88975, December 9, 2016) which requires U.S. importers to report on the
origin of fish products and to keep supply chain records. The Commerce
Trusted Trader Program would reduce the burden on importers by reducing
the reporting requirements and allowing more flexible approaches to
keep supply chain records.
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Alternatives: The Seafood Import Monitoring Program is aimed at
preventing the infiltration of illegal fish products into the U.S.
market. Alternatives to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden
for U.S. importers were considered during the course of that
rulemaking. Collecting less information at import about the origin of
products would increase the likelihood of illegal products entering the
supply chain. However, working with individual traders to secure the
supply chain will be an economical approach to ensure that illegal
products are precluded and records will be kept as needed for post-
entry audits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of the Commerce Trusted
Trader Program will be minimal in that applicants to the program will
have a small application fee and will incur the costs for an
independent audit of several entries on an annual basis. Benefits of
Trusted Trader status will include reduced reporting costs at entry and
reduced recordkeeping costs due to flexibility in archiving.
Risks: Risks of not implementing a Commerce Trusted Trader Program
would include increased compliance costs to industry and potential
increased incidence of illegal seafood infiltrating the U.S. market.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-BF09
RIN: 0648-BG51
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) is to provide the
military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our
country.
The Department is America's oldest and largest government agency.
Today, DoD is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a
civilian force of thousands. With over 1.3 million men and women on
active duty and 742,000 civilian personnel, the Department is the
nation's largest employer. Another 826 thousand serve in the National
Guard and Reserve forces and more than 2 million military retirees and
their family members receive benefits. Our military service members and
civilians operate in every time zone and in every climate with more
than 450,000 employees overseas, both afloat and ashore.
To accomplish this mission, DoD's physical plant consists of more
than several hundred thousand individual buildings and structures
located at more than 5,000 different locations or sites. These sites
range from the very small in size such as unoccupied sites supporting a
single navigational aid that sits on less than one-half acre, to the
Army's vast White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico with over 3.6
million acres, or the Navy's large complex of installations at Norfolk,
Virginia with more than 78,000 employees.
DoD trains and equips the armed forces through our three military
departments: The Army, Navy and Air Force. The Marine Corps, mainly an
amphibious force, is part of the Department of the Navy. The primary
job of the military departments is to train and equip their personnel
to perform warfighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian/disaster
assistance tasks.
The Army defends the land mass of the United States, its
territories, commonwealths, and possessions; it operates in more than
50 countries.
The Navy maintains, trains, and equips combat-ready
maritime forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and
maintaining freedom of the seas.
The Air Force provides a rapid, flexible, and when
necessary, air and space capability that routinely participates in
peacekeeping, humanitarian, and aeromedical evacuation missions.
The U.S. Marine Corps maintains ready expeditionary
forces, sea-based and integrated air-ground units for contingency and
combat operations, and
[[Page 1690]]
the means to stabilize or contain international disturbance.
National Guard and Reserve forces are taking on new and
more important roles, at home and abroad, as we transform our national
military strategy.
An all-service or ``joint'' service office supports the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his capacity as the principal military
advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the
Secretary of Defense. The unified commanders are the direct link from
the military forces to the President and the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense exercises his authority over how the
military is trained and equipped through the Service secretaries; but
uses a totally different method to exercise his authority to deploy
troops and exercise military power. This latter authority is directed,
with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the
nine unified commands.
The Department of Defense contributes to homeland security through
its military missions overseas, homeland defense, and support to civil
authorities. The Department is also responsible for homeland defense
which is the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic
population, and critical defense infrastructure against external
threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the President.
Homeland Defense includes missions such as domestic air defense,
maritime intercept operations, and land-based defense of critical
infrastructure and assets Defense support of civil authorities, often
referred to as civil support, can include Federal military forces, the
Department's career civilian and contractor personnel, and DoD agency
and component assets, for domestic emergencies and for designated law
enforcement and other activities. The Department of Defense provides
defense support of civil authorities when directed to do so by the
President or Secretary of Defense.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense helps the Secretary plan,
advise, and carry out the nation's security policies as directed by
both the Secretary of Defense and the President. The rulemakings
discussed in this regulatory statement comes out of the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(OUSD(AT&L)) and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)). These Offices are described below:
OUSD(AT&L)--procurement of goods and services; research
and development; developmental testing; contract administration;
logistics, maintenance, and sustainment support; and maintenance of the
defense industrial base of the United States.
OUSD(P&R)--readiness; National Guard and Reserve component
affairs; health affairs; training; and personnel requirements and
management, including equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation,
and quality of life matters.
This Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations
implementing the Department's policy and program priorities, as well as
new efforts by the Department to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens
on external stakeholders.
DoD's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The Department's rulemaking program strives to be responsive,
efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive Order 13609,
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (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.
DoD, 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.
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required DoD to appoint a Regulatory Reform
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force)
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.
Those reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive
Order 12866. DoD is implementing a three phase effort to review,
implement, and sustain its regulations:
Phase I: Utilizing the DoD Task Force, assess all 716
existing, codified DoD regulations to include 350 solicitation
provisions and contract clauses. The Task Force will present
recommendations for the repeal, replacement, or modification to the
Secretary of Defense on a quarterly basis through the end of December
2018.
Phase II: Upon Secretary of Defense approval, DoD will
begin implementing the elimination of regulations. Implementation
requires drafting, internal coordination, review by the Office of
Management and Budget, and providing for notice and comment, as
required by law.
Phase III: DoD will incorporate into its policies a
requirement for component's to sustain review of both new regulatory
actions and existing regulations.
As a result of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations
of its Task Force, DoD has identified priority regulatory and
deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by eliminating
unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Personnel and Readiness/Health Affairs, and the
Army Corps of Engineers will be planning actions that are considered
the ``most important'' significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions
for FY 2018. During the next year, these DoD Components plan to publish
eight rulemaking actions that are designated as significant actions.
Further information on these actions is provided below.
DoD has implemented Executive Order 13771 through its Regulatory
Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to identify
and prioritize deregulatory actions that each component or Service can
take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
In Fiscal Year 2018, DoD expects to publish more deregulatory
actions than regulatory actions. Exact figures are not yet available as
the regulations reported in this edition of the Unified Agenda are
still under evaluation for classification
[[Page 1691]]
under Executive Order 13771. Additionally, the Department Regulatory
Reform Task Force will continue working to execute directives under
Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline regulatory process and
permitting reviews. To that end, DoD may have other actions which do
not currently appear in the Agenda. DoD focuses its regulatory
resources on the most serious acquisition, health, and personnel and
readiness risks as discussed below.
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy (DPAP)
DPAP is responsible for all contracting and procurement policy
matters in the Department and uses the Defense Acquisition Regulation
System (DARS) to develop and maintain acquisition rules and to
facilitate the acquisition workforce as they acquire the goods and
services. Significant rules are highlighted below.
Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in
excess of costs.
Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015-D035).
This rule will amend the DFARS to expand the use of Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, Government Property, in
certain purchase orders for repair. This FAR clause is used in
contracts to require contractors comply with basic property receipt and
record keeping requirements. This ensures the Government is able to
track, report, and manage Government-furnished property. ``Government-
furnished property'' is property in the possession of, or directly
acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the
contractor for performance of a contract. It includes, but is not
limited to, spares and property furnished for repair, maintenance,
overhaul, or modification. Currently, the FAR clause is not required
for use in purchase orders for repair, when the unit acquisition cost
of the Government-furnished property to be repaired is less than the
simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000). However, the
unit cost of the item to be repaired alone is not an indicator of the
criticality or sensitivity of the item. For example, firearms, body
armor, night vision equipment, computers, or cryptological devices may
individually be valued at less than $150,000, but accountability of
these items is of vital importance to the Department. Not using the FAR
clause in purchase orders for repair, significantly increases the risk
of misuse or loss of Government-furnished property items. In order to
strengthen the management and accountability of Government-furnished
property provided to contractors, this rule will amend the DFARS to
require use of the FAR clause 52.245-1 in all DoD purchase orders for
repair, regardless of the unit acquisition cost of the individual items
to be repaired.
Rulemakings that promote Open Government and use disclosure as a
regulatory tool.
Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 2015-D041).
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement section 888 of
the NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires that competition not be
limited through the use of specifying brand name, brand name or
equivalent descriptions, or proprietary specifications and standards,
unless a justification for such specifications is provided and approved
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). Currently, if the Government
intends to procure specific ``brand name'' products, the contracting
officer must prepare a brand name justification and obtain the
appropriate approvals based on the estimated dollar value of the
contracts (see FAR 6.302-1(c) and 6.304). However, a justification is
not required to use ``brand name or equal'' descriptions in a
solicitation. Rather, contracting officers are required to include in
their solicitation a description of the salient physical, functional,
or performance characteristics of the brand name item that an ``equal''
item must meet. The contracting officer will also include FAR provision
52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal, in solicitations, which informs
potential offerors that offers of ``equal'' products must meet the
salient characteristic specified in this solicitation. To implement
section 888, this rule proposes to amend the DFARS to require
contracting officers to take the additional step of preparing and
obtaining an approval of a justification for use of ``brand name or
equal'' descriptions, prior to including those descriptions in a
solicitation. Contracting officers will include the justification with
the posting of the solicitation, which will promote transparency with
industry and presents an opportunity to increase competition.
Amendment to Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (DFARS Case 2016-
D011).
This rule amends Appendix I of the DFARS I to implement changes to
the Pilot Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program provided by section 861
of the NDAA for FY 2016. This Program was originally established under
section 831 of the NDAA for FY 1991. Under this program, eligible
companies approved as ``mentor firms'' will enter into agreements with
eligible ``prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms.'' The mentor firms provide
developmental assistance to prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms to perform as
subcontractors or suppliers on Government contracts. In return, the
mentor firms may receive credit against applicable subcontracting goals
under contracts with DoD or other Federal agencies. This rule amends
Appendix I of the DFARS to implement the amendments to the Program
provided by section 861. Specifically, the rule will require mentor
firms to report additional information on the assistance they have
provided to their prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. DoD's Office of Small
Business Programs will use this information to support decisions
regarding whether to continue particular mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute]
agreements. In addition, this rule adds new eligibility criteria for
both mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms and will limit the period
of time a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can participate in the Program, as
well as the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements to which
a prot[eacute]g[eacute] can be a party. Finally, this rule also extends
the Program for three years.
Rulemakings that streamline regulations and reduce unjustified
burdens.
Earned Value Management Applicability (DFARS Case 2015-D038).
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to clarify DoD's policy for
Earned Value Management System (EVMS) application on DoD contracts.
``Earned value management system'' means a project management tool that
effectively integrates the project scope of work with cost, schedule,
and performance elements for optimum project planning and control.
Implemented properly, an EVMS will measure progress against a baseline
and provide an early warning of cost overruns and schedule delays for
major acquisitions. Currently, an EVMS is required for major
acquisitions for development, in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 (see
FAR 34.201(a)). However, individual agencies may require an EVMS on
other acquisitions, as specified in their agency procedures. DoD
applies the EVMS requirement to cost or incentive contracts and
subcontracts valued at $20 million or more, and requires the EVMS
comply with the guidelines in the American National Standards
Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value
Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748). In addition, for DoD cost or
incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $50 million or more, the
EVMS must be determined by the cognizant Federal agency to be compliant
with ANSI/EIA-748. This
[[Page 1692]]
DFARS rule proposes the clarify that EVMS requirements are applicable
to DoD cost reimbursement or incentive fee contracts that have a dollar
value of $20 million or more (inclusive of all options) and a period of
performance of 18 months or longer. In addition, the rule raises the
threshold for a formal EVMS system compliance determination by the
Defense Contract Management Agency from $50 million to $100 million. It
is expected that this rule will reduce the number of contracts subject
to EVMS requirements, as well as the number of contractor EVMS reviews
to determine compliance.
Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS Case 2017-
D038).
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the threshold for
determining when a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) is
required. Per FAR subpart 44.3, the Government will conduct a CPRS in
order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which a prime
contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy
when subcontracting. During a CPSR, the Government will pay special
attention to certain aspects of a prime contractor's subcontracting
program. For example, the Government will review the degree of price
competition obtained by a prime contractor on subcontracts, whether the
prime contractor is complying with Government Cost Accounting
Standards, and whether the appropriate contract types are being used on
subcontracts (see FAR 44.303). Currently, if a contractor's sales to
the Government are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12
months, then the administrative contracting officer (ACO) will
determine whether there is a need for a CPSR (see FAR 44.302(a)). This
rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the ACO determination dollar
threshold to $50 million for DoD contracts. It is expected that this
rule may reduce the number of CPSRs conducted by DoD and, in turn,
alleviate the burden on contractors associated with participating in
the CPSR.
Rules modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing making DOD's
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the
regulatory objectives.
Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical
Interchange (DFARS Case 2017-D041).
This final rule will amend the DFARS to remove a requirement for
major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government
prior to generating independent research and development (IR&D) costs.
DoD published a final rule, effective November 4, 2016, that revised
DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4) to require major contractors to engage
in and document a technical interchange with a DoD employee, prior to
generating IR&D costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal year 2017
and later, in order for those costs to be allowable. This requirement
causes the contractor to expend time preparing for a discussion,
contacting appropriate Government personnel, discussing the IR&D
project, and documenting the conversation. Since contractors commonly
pool all of their IR&D project costs to develop a single billing rate,
this requirement would necessitate contractors having to discuss all of
the IR&D projects contained in their billing rate. While some
contractors may have a single project, many have close to 100 or more,
which could be significantly burdensome. This regulation is being
repealed pursuant to action taken by the DoD Regulatory Reform Task
Force in accordance with E.O. 13777. Repealing the technical
interchange prerequisite from the DFARS, will not only reduce the
burden imposed on major contractors, but also free these contractors to
pursue IR&D projects without including the Government in those
preliminary decisions.
Personnel and Readiness/Health Affairs
The mission of DoD's health program is to enhance the Department of
Defense and our nation's security by providing health support for the
full range of military operations and sustaining the health of all
those entrusted to our care by creating a world-class health care
system that supports the military mission by fostering, protecting,
sustaining and restoring health.
TRICARE is the health care program for uniformed service members
including active duty and retired members of the: U.S. Army, U.S. Air
Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, the Commissioned
Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Commissioned Corps of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and their families
around the world. It serves 9.5 million individuals worldwide. It
continues to offer an increasingly integrated and comprehensive health
care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a
manner consistent with the law, industry 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.
For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rule.
Establishment of TRICARE Select and Other TRICARE Reforms, RIN
0720-AB70. This final rule implements the primary features of section
701 and partially implements several other sections of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). This final
rule advances all four components of the Military Health System's
quadruple aim of improved readiness, better care, better health, and
lower cost. The aim of improved readiness is served by reinforcing the
vital role of the TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients,
particularly those needing specialty care, to military medical
treatment facilities (MTFs) in order to ensure that military health
care providers maintain clinical currency and proficiency in their
professional fields. The objective of better care is enhanced by a
number of improvements in beneficiary access to health care services,
including increased geographical coverage for the TRICARE Select
provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime
enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care referrals,
and promotion of high value services and medications. The goal of
better health is advanced by expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive
care services, treatment of obesity, high-value care, and telehealth.
And the aim of lower cost is furthered by refining cost-benefit
assessments for TRICARE plan specifications that remain under DoD's
discretion and adding flexibilities to incentivize high-value health
care services.
Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is a major Army
command made up of some 37,000 civilian and military personnel, making
it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and
construction management agencies. Although generally associated with
dams, canals and flood protection in the United States, USACE is
involved in a wide range of public works throughout the world. The
Corps of Engineers provides outdoor recreation opportunities to the
public, and provides 24% of U.S. hydropower capacity.
The corps' mission is to ``Deliver vital public and military
engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our
Nation's security, energize the economy and reduce risks from
disasters.'' The most visible missions include:
Planning, designing, building, and operating locks and
dams. Other civil engineering projects include flood
[[Page 1693]]
control, beach nourishment, and dredging for waterway navigation.
Design and construction of flood protection systems
through various federal mandates.
Design and construction management of military facilities
for the Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve and other
Defense and Federal agencies.
Environmental regulation and ecosystem restoration.
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
the Army (``the agencies'') published the ``Clean Water Rule:
Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (80 FR 37054, June 29,
2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit stayed the 2015 rule nationwide pending further action of the
court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed the ``Executive Order
on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by
Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule'' which instructed the
agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as
appropriate and consistent with law. On July 27, 2017, the agencies
published a Federal Register notice proposing to withdraw (STEP 1 of a
comprehensive 2-STEP process) the 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR) and
reinstate pre-existing regulations and guidance (1986 regulations plus
2003 SWANCC and 2008 Rapanos Guidance); the initial 30-day comment
period was extended an additional 30 days to September 28, 2017.
The Executive Order further directs that EPA and the Army ``shall
consider interpreting the term `navigable waters' ``in a manner
consistent with Supreme Court Justice Scalia's opinion'' in Rapanos
indicating that Clean Water Act jurisdiction includes relatively
permanent waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to
relatively permanent waters. Later this fiscal year, after considering
the comments received in response to the STEP 1 FRN, the agencies plan
to propose a new definition to replace the definition and regulatory
approach codified in the 2015 CWR. Over the past few months the
agencies have been having meetings and holding webinars with Tribes,
States, and organizations that request them to explain the 2-STEP
process, what the Scalia Opinion means, and some of the options for
developing a new definition of Waters of the United States. These
briefing and listening sessions will continue through November 2017.
Until the new rule is finalized, the agencies will continue to
implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 CWR
consistent with the SWANCC and Rapanos Guidance, while the 6th Circuit
Court stay of the 2015 CWR is still in effect or the EPA and Army
complete rulemaking to amend the effective date of the 2015 CWR.
DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)
Proposed Rule Stage
13. Earned Value Management Applicability (DFARS Case 2015-D038)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 234; 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify DoD's policy for Earned Value
Management System (EVMS) application on DoD contracts, beyond the basic
triggers of contract types and dollar values. Specifically, the rule:
Clarifies that EVMS requirements are applicable to all DoD
contracts, task orders, and delivery orders, that are cost
reimbursement or incentive fee; have a value of $20 million or more
(inclusive of all options); and have a period of performance of 18
months or longer;
Clarifies that, with the exception of a contractor EVMS
under the cognizance of the Naval Sea Systems Command, where system
approval is not delegated to the Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA), DCMA is responsible for approving a contractor's EVMS;
Removes the reference to American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) guidelines and states that EVMS must comply with
guidelines in Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard 748 (EIA-
748);
Raises the threshold for a formal earned value management
system compliance determination by the Defense Contract Management
Agency from $50 million to $100 million; and
Clarifies that EVMS requirements apply unless the
requirements package includes a determination of earned value
management nonapplicability or a waiver signed by the component
acquisition executive.
This rule will not increase costs for contractors. DoD expects that
this rule will decreases costs for contractors by increasing the dollar
threshold for formal EVMS compliance determinations from $50 million to
$100 million, and providing for earned value management non-
applicability determinations and waivers. DoD estimates that this rule
will reduce the number of contractor reviews by nearly 20 percent with
very little risk to the Government, since over 97 percent of the
contract dollars will still be covered by the increased threshold.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to ensure proper
application of EVMS requirements in DoD contracts, task orders, and
delivery orders based on contract type and period of performance, and
increase the contractual threshold for an approved earned value
management system from $50 million to $100 million.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations.
Alternatives: No alternatives were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the DoD Performance
Assessments and Root Cause Analyses (PARCA) Earned Value Management
Division's assessment of DoD application of earned value management,
the reduction in DoD EVMS compliance surveillance will allow for the
valuable repurposing of an estimated 50 personnel to support other
essential priorities and missions, resulting in direct savings to the
Department in excess of $3 million. Furthermore, corresponding savings
in reduced DoD contractor overhead costs are conservatively estimated
at two to three times the DoD savings (One contractor alone in PARCA's
study estimated approximately $6 million company-wide savings
annually). Since the actual cost impact is difficult to quantify, DoD
is conservatively estimating annualized savings of $10 million.
Risks: Failure to implement this rule will perpetuate the
unproductive regulatory earned value management compliance requirements
on industry for certain types of contracts where such oversight is
unnecessary.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
[[Page 1694]]
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ10
DOD--DARC
14. Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS CASE
2017-D038)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 244.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement to establish a higher dollar threshold for
conducting contractor purchasing system reviews. This rule proposes, in
lieu of the threshold at Federal Acquisition Regulation 44.302(a), the
administrative contracting officer shall determine the need for a
contractors purchasing system review if a contractor's sales to the
Government are expected to exceed $50 million during the next 12
months. This rule is not expected to increase costs for contractors;
rather, the rule may reduce the number of contractor purchasing system
reviews conducted by the Government, thus alleviating burden on
contractors.
Statement of Need: There is a need to increase the threshold for a
contractor purchasing system review from $25 to $50 million to reduce
the administrative burden on contractors and the Government for
maintaining and reviewing an approved contractor purchasing system.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations.
Alternatives: No alternatives to this action are being considered
at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementing this rule provides a
net annualized savings of approximately $12 million. This estimate is
based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)
data for fiscal year 2016, which indicates that 958 unique vendors
received awards valued at $25 million or more, but less than $50
million, that were subject to the purchasing system review. Removing
this requirement would relieve these contractors from the time and cost
burden required to establish, maintain, audit, document, and train for
an approved purchasing system.
Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the public will continue to
experience additional costs to comply with this rule at the current
threshold.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ48
DOD--DARC
15. Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 2017-D040)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 113-291, sec. 888; 10
U.S.C. 2304(f)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 206; 48 CFR 211.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 23, 2016, Effective upon
enactment.
Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement to implement section 888 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2017, which requires that competition not be
limited through the use of specifying brand names or brand name or
equivalent descriptions, or proprietary specifications and standards,
unless a justification for such specifications is provided and approved
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). This rule affects the internal
operating procedures of the Government, and is not expected to increase
costs for contractors or offerors.
Statement of Need: This case is necessary to ensure contracting
officers comply with section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-
291). Specifically, it will ensure contracting officers properly
justify for the use of brand name and brand name or equivalent
descriptions, or proprietary specifications or standards.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations. In addition, this rule is
necessary to implement the statutory amendments made by section 888 of
the NDAA for FY 2017.
Alternatives: There are no viable alternatives that are consistent
with the stated objectives of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department does not expect this
proposed rule to have any cost impact on contractors or offerors.
Rather, preparing a justification for the use of brand name
descriptions or specifications provides increased transparency into the
acquisition planning and source selection strategy process for
department goods and services.
Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the department will not be in
compliance with section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2017, therefore losing
an opportunity to increase competition, expand the defense industrial
base and secure reduced pricing.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/18 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ50
DOD--DARC
Final Rule Stage
16. Amendment to Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (DFARS Case 2016-
D011)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 114-92, sec. 861
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 219; 48 CFR, ch. 2, app I.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement section 861 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, which provides the
following amendments to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
Program (``the Program''):
Requires mentor firms to report assistance provided to or
obtained for
[[Page 1695]]
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; new subcontracts awarded to
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; any extensions, increases in the scope of
work, or additional, unreported payments to prot[eacute]g[eacute]
firms; all Federal contracts awarded to the mentor and
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms as a joint venture; whether the terms of
the mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreement have changed; and a
narrative describing the success assistance provided under the Program
has had in addressing the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm's developmental
needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and addressing any problems
encountered.
Requires mentor firms and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms to
meet new eligibility criteria.
Limits the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute]
agreements to which a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm may be a party to one
at a time.
Limits the period of time during which a
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm may participate in mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements under the Program to five years.
Requires mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements to
address the benefits of the agreement to DoD and goals for additional
awards for which the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can compete outside the
Program.
Removes business development assistance using mentor firm
personnel and cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm from the types of assistance that a mentor
firm may provide to a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm.
Prohibits reimbursement of any fee assessed by the mentor
firm for certain services provided to the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm
while participating in a joint venture with the prot[eacute]g[eacute]
firm.
One respondent submitted a public comment on the proposed rule.
This rule will slightly increase the costs for contractors
participating in the program by introducing new reporting requirements,
as required by the statute; however, these costs are offset by benefits
offered by the Program. For example, the Program provides incentives to
both mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. Mentor firms may receive
credit toward the goals in their small business subcontracting plan for
the funds they spend on developmental assistance for their
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. The Program offers prot[eacute]g[eacute]
firms the opportunity to learn about contracting with DoD and to
receive subcontracts from an established, successful DoD contractor.
Statement of Need: This final rule amends the DFARS to implement
section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2016, which provides amendments to the DoD Pilot Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (the Program). These amendments include
new reporting requirements that will provide information to DoD's
Office of Small Business Programs to support decisions regarding
continuation of particular mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements; a
three-year extension of the Program; and changes to the requirements
for business development assistance provided by a mentor firm and for
the reimbursement of fees assessed by the mentor firm. This rule is
needed to implement these statutory requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations. In addition, this rule is
necessary to implement the statutory amendments made to the mentor
protege program by section 861 of the NDAA for FY 2016.
Alternatives: There are no viable alternatives that are consistent
with the stated objectives of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annualized cost to the public is
anticipated to be approximately $20,000 over the next four years, after
which the Program is scheduled to end. Nearly all of these costs are
borne by mentor firms. The anticipated cost is based on the number of
firms currently participating in the Program, the number of new mentor
applications DoD receives each year, and the number of new mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements submitted for DoD approval each year
under the Program. The Government estimated the cost of various
activities mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms must perform to
comply with the rule, including submission of reports.
The anticipated costs are offset by benefits offered by the
Program. For mentor firms, these benefits include credit toward the
goals in their small business subcontracting plans for the
developmental assistance they provide to their prot[eacute]g[eacute]
firms. Participation in the Program as a mentor is one way for mentors
to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with their subcontracting
plans. For prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms, the benefits of the Program
include an opportunity to gain assistance from a successful mentor that
will enable them to grow and develop as a business. Such assistance
will help them obtain subcontracts with DoD contractors and eventually
contracts with DoD.
Risks: If this rule is not finalized, all developmental assistance
provided under the Program will end on September 30, 2018. As of that
date, mentor firms will no longer be able to receive credit toward the
goals in their small business subcontracting plans for developmental
assistance provided to prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms.
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms will no longer have the opportunity to
learn about contracting with DoD from a mentor who is a successful DoD
contractor. In addition, the Government will lose access to a pool of
potential new contractors and subcontractors, therefore losing an
opportunity to strengthen and diversify the defense industrial base.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/23/16 81 FR 65610
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/22/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/18 .......................
Final Action Effective.............. 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ05
DOD--DARC
17. Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015-D035)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 245.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement to expand the prescription for use of
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, Government
Property, to apply to all purchase orders for repair, maintenance,
overhaul, or modification to Government property regardless of the
acquisition cost of the items to be repaired. Currently, the FAR clause
is optional for use in purchase orders for repair when the acquisition
cost of the item to be repaired is less than the simplified acquisition
threshold; however, acquisition cost alone is not an indicator of the
criticality or sensitivity of the property. The acquisition cost of
individual items of firearms, body armor, night-vision equipment,
computers, or cryptologic devices may be below the simplified
acquisition threshold, but the accountability requirements for these
items are fairly stringent. Requiring the clause in all purchase orders
for repair, regardless of the acquisition cost of the item to be
repaired, will ensure DoD has
[[Page 1696]]
better accountability and insight into military reparable assets.
One respondent submitted comments on the proposed rule. This rule
will increase costs for contractors, including small entities, who
receive purchase orders for repair of Government property, because
these contractors will be required to comply with the reporting
requirements associated with Government property clause. However, the
rule also provides the contractors with the protections of the
Government Property clause (where the Government self-insures the
property provided to the contractor), and provides DoD better
accountability of its property.
Statement of Need: The rule is required to achieve greater
accountability of Government furnished property (GFP) and decrease the
risk of misuse or loss of Government property. Accountability of assets
is an important part of audit readiness. This rule facilitates DoD's
goal of achieving full accountability and visibility of equipment
provided to contractors as GFP, including critical and sensitive
equipment items. This rule closes an existing accountability gap by
treating purchase orders for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or
modification of GFP no different from other contractual instruments
involving repair of GFP, such as delivery orders awarded under Basic
Ordering Agreements or issued under Indefinite Delivery Contracts.
The rule also enables compliance with DoD Instruction 4161.02
entitled Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property,
which requires DoD components to use electronic transactions when
transferring GFP to a contractor and upon the return of the property to
DoD. Use of FAR clause 52.245-1, Government Property, in conjunction
with associated DFARS clauses, creates an electronic end-to-end process
for GFP management.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations.
Alternatives: There are no viable alternatives that would provide
tracking and accountability of GFP provided to contractors for repair
that would provide full visibility of Government assets and integrate
with existing GFP procedures and electronic systems. The rule reflects
marketplace practices, which limits the consideration of alternatives.
Many of the requirements contained in FAR 52.245-1, e.g., receiving
reports, discrepancy reports and property records, are typical
commercial practices, and so not unduly burdensome. For example,
customary commercial practice is to create receiving reports and keep
records for incoming assets regardless of the source of such assets. In
addition, the policy at FAR 45.103(b) permits contractors to use their
own existing property management procedures, practices, and systems to
account for and manage Government property.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annual estimated cost to the
public is based on Federal Procurement Data System transaction data for
fiscal year 2015 for purchase orders for repairs of Government
equipment. Using this baseline, costs were calculated for contractor
reporting, record keeping, and compliance costs. Some contractors may
be required to setup a property management system; however, this impact
is minimal since contractors may use their own existing practices and
systems. The annualized cost is estimated to be approximately $350,000.
Benefits of this rule accrue to both contractors and the Government
resulting from improved accountability of GFP, which should reduce
losses and mitigate potential property ownership issues. This will
serve to minimize contract disputes, claims, and litigation; thereby
reducing administrative costs for both contractors and the Government.
Accountability of GFP facilitates proper disposition and adjudication
of all property during contract closeout and should result in prompt
contract payment.
Risks: This rule addresses an accountability gap in managing and
accounting for Government assets and should mitigate the risk of loss
of Government property. Some equipment requiring repairs that would now
be covered by this rule are deemed critical and sensitive, e.g.,
firearms, body armor, night-vision equipment, computers, and
cryptologic devices. Loss or theft of such devices could have far
reaching consequences.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/21/16 81 FR 73002
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/20/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/18 .......................
Final Action Effective.............. 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ11
DOD--DARC
18. Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical
Interchange (DFARS Case 2017-D041)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 231.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove the requirement at
DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4) for contractors to conduct a technical
interchange with a DoD Government employee before independent research
and development (IR&D) costs are generated for IR&D projects initiated
in FY 2017 or later, as a prerequisite for those costs to be determined
allowable. This rule is expected to decrease costs for contractors and
offerors.
Statement of Need: This action is necessary relieve excess burden
experienced by industry when deciding to invest in innovative
technologies that may benefit the Department.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
executive agency implementing regulations.
Alternatives: No alternatives to this action are being considered
at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementing this rule provides a
net annualized savings of approximately $2 million. This estimate is
based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)
data for FY 2016, which indicates that 307 unique vendors were awarded
a non-commercial, cost-type contract subject to cost accounting
standards and certified cost and pricing data. IR&D costs are most
commonly included in non-commercial, cost-type contracts that are
subject to certified cost and pricing data and cost accounting
standards. Public comments on the case implementing this requirement in
the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement indicate that a
contractor may invest in numerous IR&D projects that would be
incorporated into their proposed IR&D rate. Removing this requirement
would relieve contractors
[[Page 1697]]
from the time burden of preparing for a discussion, locating the
appropriate Government contact, discussing with the Government, and
documenting a technical interchange for an IR&D project.
Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the public will experience
additional costs to comply with this rule, as well as the possibility
of not being reimbursed for IR&D costs under a Government contract.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 01/00/18
Final Action Effective.............. 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal./
Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ51
DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Final Rule Stage
19. Establishment of Tricare Select and Other Tricare Reforms
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject to, not significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 55; NDAA-17 sec. 701; NDAA-17 sec.
706; NDAA-17 sec. 715; NDAA-17 sec. 718; NDAA-17 sec. 729
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 23, 2017, NDAA 17 section
718. Other, Statutory, January 1, 2018, NDAA 17 section 729.
Abstract: This interim final rule implements the primary features
of section 701 and partially implements several other sections of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). The
law makes significant changes to the TRICARE program, especially to the
health maintenance organization (HMO)-like health plan, known as
TRICARE Prime; to the preferred provider organization health plan,
previously called TRICARE Extra and now to be called TRICARE Select;
and to the third health care option, known as TRICARE Standard, which
will be terminated as of December 31, 2017, and replaced by TRICARE
Select. The statute also adopts a new health plan enrollment system
under TRICARE and new provisions for access to care, high value
services, preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In implementing the
statutory changes, this interim final rule makes a number of
improvements to TRICARE. Specifically, this rule will enhance
beneficiary access to health care services, including increased
geographic coverage for the TRICARE Select provider network, reduced
administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime enrollees to obtain urgent
care services and specialty care referrals, and promotion of high value
services and medications and telehealth services. It will also expand
TRICARE coverage of preventive care services and prevention and
treatment of obesity and refining cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE
plan specifications that remain under DoD's discretion.
Statement of Need: This interim final rule implements the primary
features of section 701 and partially implements several other sections
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-
17). The law makes significant changes to the TRICARE program,
especially to the health maintenance organization (HMO)-like health
plan, known as TRICARE Prime; to the preferred provider organization
health plan, previously called TRICARE Extra and now to be called
TRICARE Select; and to the third health care option, known as TRICARE
Standard, which will be terminated as of December 31, 2017, and
replaced by TRICARE Select. The statute also adopts a new health plan
enrollment system under TRICARE and new provisions for access to care,
high-value services, preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In
implementing the statutory changes, this interim final rule makes a
number of improvements to TRICARE.
In implementing section 701 and partially implementing several
other sections of NDAA-17, this interim final rule advances all four
components of the Military Health System's quadruple aim of stronger
readiness, better care, healthier people, and smarter spending. The aim
of stronger readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role of the
TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those needing
specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities in order to
ensure that military health care providers maintain clinical currency
and proficiency in their professional fields. The objective of better
care is enhanced by a number of improvements in beneficiary access to
health care services, including geographical coverage for the TRICARE
Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE
Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care
referrals, and promotion of high-value services and medications and
telehealth services. The goal of healthier people is advanced by
expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services and prevention
and treatment of obesity. And the aim of smarter spending is furthered
by sharpening cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications
that remain under the DoD's discretion.
Summary of Legal Basis: This interim final rule is required to
implement or partially implement several sections of NDAA-17, including
701, 706, 715, 718, and 729. The legal authority for this rule also
includes chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is not anticipated to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100M or more, thus it is not an
economically significant rule under the Executive Order and the
Congressional Review Act. The rule includes estimated program costs
associated with implementation that include administrative startup
costs ($11M) information systems changes ($10M). Executive Order 13771,
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, seeks to control
costs associated with the government imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal regulations and to reduce regulations
that impose such costs. Consistent with the analysis of transfer
payments under OMB Circular A-4, this interim final rule does not
involve regulatory costs subject to E.O. 13771.
Risks: The rule does not impose any risks. The risks lie in not
implementing statutorily required changes.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 09/29/17 82 FR 45438
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/28/17
End.
Final Action........................ 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mark Ellis, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810A,
Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 681-0039.
[[Page 1698]]
RIN: 0720-AB70
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. Introduction
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States,
local communities, institutions of higher education, and families 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 data, 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 2017-18 school year, about 56 million students will
attend an estimated 133,000 elementary and secondary schools in
approximately 13,600 districts, and about 20 million students will
enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students
may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from
the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical
assistance, evaluations, data gathering and reporting, and monitoring
related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with
affected persons and groups. We know that improving education starts
with allowing greater decision-making authority at the State and local
levels while also recognizing that the ultimate form of local control
occurs when parents and students are empowered to choose their own
educational paths forward. Our core mission includes this empowerment
of local education, serving the most vulnerable, and facilitating equal
access for all, to ensure all students receive a high-quality
education, and complete it with a well-considered and attainable path
to a sustainable career.
Toward these ends, 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 committed to reducing burden with regard to regulations,
guidance, and information collections, reducing the burden on
information providers involved in our programs, and making information
easily accessible to the public. To that end and consistent with
Executive Order 13777 (``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''), we
are in the process of reviewing all of our regulations and guidance to
modify and rescind items that: (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation; (2) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (3) impose
costs that exceed benefits; (4) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C.
3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in
particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data,
information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are
insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(6) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially
modified.
II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Proposed Rulemakings
The following actions are the significant new rulemaking actions
the Department is planning for the coming year. Because we are just now
beginning the rulemaking process for these regulations, we have limited
information about the potential costs and benefits and therefore
whether these would be considered regulatory or deregulatory actions
under Executive Order 13771.
Postsecondary Education/Federal Student Aid
The Secretary is planning two new rulemakings in the area of higher
education and Federal Student Aid under the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended (HEA). In 2014, we completed a rulemaking to establish
regulations governing certain postsecondary educational programs that
prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, and
in 2016, we completed a rulemaking to establish regulations governing,
among other issues, borrower defenses to repayment of student loans. In
the two new rulemakings, described below, we are planning to revisit
these regulations with the goals of alleviating unnecessary regulatory
burdens and ensuring appropriate protections for students,
institutions, the taxpayers, and the Federal government. Through the
use of the negotiated rulemaking process, we will receive input from a
diverse range of interests and affected parties and will have the
opportunity to reach consensus on a set of regulations that best meets
those parties' needs and our overall goals.
More specifically, the Secretary plans to establish new regulations
governing
[[Page 1699]]
the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regarding
the standard and the process for determining whether a borrower has a
defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or omission of a school.
We also may amend other sections of the Direct Loan Program
regulations, including those that codify our current policy regarding
the impact that discharges have on the 150 percent Direct Subsidized
Loan Limit; and the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations
providing the financial responsibility standards and disclosure
requirements for schools. In addition, we may amend the discharge
provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct Loan, Federal Family
Education Loan, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher
Education Grant programs.
The Secretary is also commencing rulemaking to amend the gainful
employment regulations, including those provisions relating to
institutional eligibility, reporting, and disclosures.
Civil Rights/Title IX
The Secretary is planning a new rulemaking to address significant
issues under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended.
In this action, we seek to clarify schools' obligations in redressing
sex discrimination, including complaints of sexual misconduct, and the
procedures by which they must do so.
Deregulatory Actions
The Department anticipates issuing a number of deregulatory actions
in the upcoming fiscal year. We have thus far been focusing our
deregulatory efforts on eliminating outdated regulations. In many
instances, our deregulatory actions are being taken because legislation
has superseded our regulations. For example, we are planning to rescind
a number of sections from our Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education regulations to clarify which regulations were superseded by
the recently enacted Every Student Succeeds Act. These deregulatory
actions, such as rescinding the Adequate Yearly Progress regulations at
34 CFR 200.13-22, will clarify for our stakeholders and the general
public which of our regulations are still in effect, and which have
been rescinded. Similarly, we are planning to rescind a number of the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services regulations
issued by the Department's former National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Congress transferred NIDRR to the
Department of Health and Human Services, and this deregulatory action
will rescind regulations that the Department no longer administers,
thereby avoiding confusion. The unified agenda identifies other
deregulatory actions that provide cost savings and clarity.
III. Regulatory Review
As stated previously, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive
regulatory reform effort pursuant to Executive Order 13777, focusing on
rescinding and modifying all outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective
regulations, guidance, and information collections. Section 3(e) of the
Executive Order requires the Department, as part of this effort, to
``seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities
significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local,
and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental
organizations, and trade associations'' on regulations that meet some
or all of the criteria above.
Consistent with section 3(e), on June 22, 2017, the Department
published a Federal Register notice soliciting such input from the
public to inform its evaluation of existing regulations and guidance.
We specified in the notice that we are particularly interested in
regulatory provisions that are unduly costly or unnecessarily
burdensome. The public's comments will be closely reviewed and
considered as part of our overall regulatory reform initiative.
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 the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated
entity must adopt.
Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as
needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
ED--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)
Proposed Rule Stage
20. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 106.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary plans to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking to clarify schools' obligations in redressing sex
discrimination, including complaints of sexual misconduct, and the
procedures by which they must do so.
Statement of Need: This regulatory action will address issues
regarding schools' obligations under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, as amended, to redress sex discrimination.
Summary of Legal Basis: 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.
Alternatives: These will be presented in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and discussed in the Final Regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be presented in a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and discussed in the Final Regulations.
Risks: These will be presented in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and discussed in the Final Regulations.
Timetable:
[[Page 1700]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Alejandro Reyes, Department of Education, Office
for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4E213, Washington, DC
20202, Phone: 202 453-7100, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1870-AA14
ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)
Proposed Rule Stage
21. Borrower Defense and Related Issues
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(5), (a)(6); 20 U.S.C.1087(a); 20
U.S.C. 1087e(h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1226a-1; 20 U.S.C.
1234(a); 31 U.S.C. 3711
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 30; 34 CFR 668; 34 CFR 674; 34 CFR 682; 34 CFR
685; 34 CFR 686; and other sections as applicable.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary plans to establish new regulations
governing the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program
regarding the standard and the process for determining whether a
borrower has a defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or
omission of a school. We also may amend other sections of the Direct
Loan Program regulations, including those that codify our current
policy regarding the impact that discharges have on the 150 percent
Direct Subsidized Loan Limit; and the Student Assistance General
Provisions regulations providing the financial responsibility standards
and disclosure requirements for schools. In addition, we may amend the
discharge provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan), Direct
Loan and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program regulations.
Statement of Need: The Secretary is initiating negotiated
rulemaking to revise current regulations governing borrower defenses to
loan repayment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 of the HEA requires that,
before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs
authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public
involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After
obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary
conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations.
Section 455(h) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA),
20 U.S.C. 1087e(h), authorizes the Secretary to specify in regulation
which acts or omissions of an institution of higher education a
borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a Direct Loan.
Alternatives: These will be identified through the negotiated
rulemaking process, presented in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
discussed in the Final Regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be identified through the
negotiated rulemaking process, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
discussed in the Final Regulations.
Risks: These will be identified through the negotiated rulemaking
process, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and discussed in the Final
Regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 06/16/17 82 FR 27640
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 05/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, Department of Education, Office
of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W245,
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 453-6712, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD26
ED--OPE
22. Program Integrity; Gainful Employment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001; 20 U.S.C. 1002; 20 U.S.C. 1003; 20
U.S.C. 1088; 20 U.S.C. 1091; 20 U.S.C. 1094; 20 U.S.C. 1099(b); 20
U.S.C. 1099(c)
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary plans to amend regulations on institutional
eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA),
and the Student Assistance General Provisions, including the
regulations governing whether certain postsecondary educational
programs prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation, and the conditions under which these educational programs
remain eligible under the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under
title IV of the HEA.
Statement of Need: The Secretary is initiating negotiated
rulemaking to revise the gainful employment regulations published by
the Department on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64889).
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 of the HEA requires that,
before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs
authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public
involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After
obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary
conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations.
Section 431 of the Department of Education Organization Act provides
authority to the Secretary, in relevant part, to inform the public
regarding federally supported education programs; and collect data and
information on applicable programs for the purpose of obtaining
objective measurements of the effectiveness of such programs in
achieving the intended purposes of such programs. 20 U.S.C. 1231a.
Alternatives: These will be identified through the negotiated
rulemaking process, presented in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
discussed in the Final Regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be identified through the
negotiated rulemaking process, presented in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and discussed in the Final Regulations.
Risks: These will be identified through the negotiated rulemaking
process, presented in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and discussed in
the Final Regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 06/16/17 82 FR 27640
Negotiated Rulemaking.
[[Page 1701]]
NPRM................................ 06/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, Department of Education, Office
of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W245,
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 453-6712, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD31
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Energy (DOE or The Department) 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 ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing
its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through
transformative science and technology solutions.
Through its regulatory and deregulatory activities, the Department
works to ensure it both achieves its critical mission, and implements
the administration's initiative to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' As such, the
Department strives to act in a prudent and financially responsible
manner in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources, and manages appropriately the costs associated with private
expenditures required for compliance with DOE regulations. Ultimately,
DOE aims to promote meaningful regulatory burden reduction, while at
the same time achieve its regulatory objectives and statutory
obligations.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
DOE's regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the
Department's efforts to achieve meaningful burden reduction while
continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
DOE's regulatory priorities reflect the Department's statutory
obligations. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE
to review its appliance efficiency standards at least once every six
years to determine whether a new standard can be implemented at a level
that achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. The Department
continues to work to meet these obligations.
DOE is also engaging in a number of deregulatory activities aimed
at reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These activities include
expediting the approval process for applicants proposing to export
small volumes of natural gas and taking a number of actions to right-
size the safety requirements for persons conducting activities that
affect, or may affect, the safety of DOE nuclear facilities.
Aggregate Number of Anticipated Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
For fiscal year 2017 and 2018 DOE plans to implement 7 regulatory
actions and 16 deregulatory actions. DOE is largely focusing its
resources on pursuing the deregulatory actions listed in the Regulatory
Agenda. While none of the rulemakings listed as regulatory actions in
DOE's regulatory agenda meet the Regulatory Plan criterion of ``most
important significant regulatory actions'' of the agency, DOE is
placing one action in its Regulatory Plan, for the purpose of
transparency and due to the non-trivial costs of the proposed action:
Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking
Products. At the 7% and 3% discount rate the primary annualized cost
for this rule is expected to be 42.6 million and 42.3 million dollars
respectively. The primary annualized benefits at the 7% and 3% discount
rate are expected to be 126 million and 178 million respectively.
In all its rulemakings, as required by E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' DOE ensures that the net benefits of any rule it
publishes outweigh the costs of the rulemaking. Further, DOE will not
issue a rule if that rule contains unjustified burdens.
Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules
As part of its efforts to comply with Section 6 of E.O. 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' which requires agencies
to conduct a retrospective review of existing rules to identify rules
that are ``outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome,'' and to determine whether such regulations should be
``modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed'' DOE issued a request
for information (RFI) on May 30, 2017, 82 FR 24582. Among other issues,
this RFI requested insight from the public as to what regulations may
meet the definition of E.O. 13563. DOE is reviewing all 132 comments
received to gain a better insight into possible regulations that can be
modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed. As required by Executive
Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'', DOE also has
established a regulatory reform task force, tasked with the mission of
identifying regulations in need of reform, as specified in the order.
The task force's activities are intended to assist DOE in meeting the
objectives of E.O. 13563.
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
23. Energy Conservation Standards and Definition 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.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, Date will be determined based on
prior actions required by the settlement agreement.
Abstract: The Department will issue a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking that includes a proposed determination with respect
to whether to amend or adopt standards for general service light-
emitting diode (LED) lamps and that may include a proposed
determination with respect to whether to amend or adopt standard for
compact fluorescent lamps. According to the Settlement agreement
between NEMA vs DOE, DOE will use its best efforts to issue GSL SNOPR
within five months of publishing the final rule on vibration service
and rough service lamps.
Statement of Need: DOE is directed under EPCA to determine when 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 for
GSL's (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)). Furthermore, pursuant to EPCA, any
new or amended energy conservation standard that the
[[Page 1702]]
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.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for 01/19/17 82 FR 7276
GSL.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for 01/01/20 .......................
GSL Effective.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for 01/19/17 82 FR 7322
GSL Including IRL.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for 01/01/20 .......................
GSL Including IRL Effective.
GSL Supplemental NPRM............... 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Buildings Technologies Office, 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
24. Energy Conservation Standards For Residential Conventional Cooking
Products
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6292 (a)(10); 42
U.S.C. 6295(h)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, Subject to 6-year-look-back at
6295(m).
Abstract: EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, requires the Secretary to
determine whether updating the statutory energy conservation standards
for residential conventional cooking products would yield a significant
savings in energy use and is technically feasible and economically
justified. DOE is reviewing to make such determination.
Statement of Need: 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 conventional cooking products. EPCA
also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether
more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy.
DOE is proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for
residential conventional cooking products, specifically conventional
cooking tops and conventional ovens.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPCA provides that not later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for
the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In accordance with this statutory provision, DOE
proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for residential
conventional cooking products.
Alternatives: Additional compliance flexibilities may be available
through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual
gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may
apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation
standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the standard (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)).
Additionally, section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act,
42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule
issued under EPCA in order to prevent special hardship, inequity, or
unfair distribution of burdens that may be imposed on that manufacturer
as a result of such rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Using a 7-percent discount rate for
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for
consumer
[[Page 1703]]
conventional cooking products is $42.6 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $120.3 million
in reduced equipment operating costs.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional
cooking products is $42.3 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $163.3 million in
reduced operating costs.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the reference year through the end of
the analysis period (2017 to 2049). Using a real discount rate of 9.1
percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products is $1,241.6 million in 2016 dollars.
Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may
experience a reduction of up to 4.7 percent of their INPV, which is
approximately $58.4 million in 2016.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits
of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products ranges from
$1.08 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.63 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of
future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product
costs for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in 2020-
2049.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 02/12/14 79 FR 8337
RFI Comment Period End.............. 03/14/14 .......................
RFI Comment Period Extended......... 03/03/14 79 FR 11714
RFI Comment Period Extended End..... 04/14/14 .......................
NPRM and Public Meeting............. 06/10/15 80 FR 33030
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 07/30/15 80 FR 45452
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 09/09/15 .......................
Supplemental NPRM................... 09/02/16 81 FR 60784
SNPRM Comment Period End............ 10/03/16 .......................
SNPRM Comment Period Extended....... 09/30/16 81 FR 67219
SNPRM Comment Period Extended End... 11/02/16 .......................
Supplemental NPRM................... 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0005.
Agency Contact: Stephanie Johnson, General Engineer, Department of
Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Building Technologies Office, EE5B, Washington, DC 20002,
Phone: 202 287-1943, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD15
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2018
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries out a
wide array of activities in order to fulfill its mission of protecting
and promoting the health and well-being of the American people. From
supporting cutting-edge research and disease surveillance to regulating
products and facilities to administering programs that help our
citizens most in need of access to health care and social services,
HHS's work has a clear impact on the daily life of all Americans.
In order to successfully carry out its mission, HHS is committed to
a regulatory agenda that is focused on better meeting the needs of the
individuals served by its programs, empowering individuals and
communities by reducing the burden of compliance, and maximizing the
impact of federal investments. Through its rulemakings in the coming
fiscal year, HHS will take concrete steps towards streamlining its
regulations and improving the transparency, flexibility, and
accountability of its regulatory processes in order to realize a future
where science, health care, and human services are fundamentally
person-centered.
I. More Effectively Meeting the Needs of Individuals
In order to better serve the American people through its programs,
HHS will propose a number of regulatory actions aimed at improving
service delivery through meaningful information sharing, supporting
consumer autonomy and decision-making, and better aligning programs
with the most current science.
Improving Service Delivery Through Meaningful and Appropriate
Information Sharing
In order to deliver quality health care and human services,
stronger and clearer regulatory systems that promote the judicious
sharing of personally identifiable information among care teams,
individuals, and families are necessary, while protecting the
confidentiality and security of that information. The Office of Civil
Rights (OCR), the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology (ONC), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) intend to promulgate rules related to
the sharing of electronic data and records. In particular, OCR plans to
propose a rule clarifying information sharing with family members when
patients are incapacitated.
Supporting Consumer Autonomy
Integral to a person-centered approach to health care is the
concept of autonomy and personal responsibility: Providing consumers
with the information they need and choices so they can take
responsibility for their health and better direct their own care. In
order to provide patients with information that is useful, actionable,
and comprehensible, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to
amend its regulations regarding the information patients receive for
outpatient-administered prescription drugs. To encourage more consumer-
directed care, FDA also plans to propose regulations to facilitate
access to more treatments for common conditions by using new
approaches, including new technologies, to assist consumers in self-
selection and use of products that have previously been available only
by prescription.
Aligning Programs With Scientific Advancements
In order to best respond to the needs of patients, it is crucial
that HHS regulations and programs reflect current science. HHS is
fulfilling this need by updating regulations so that the Department can
utilize the full spectrum
[[Page 1704]]
of current scientific thinking when carrying out program activities.
Specifically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
plans to revise the Vaccine Injury Table to include vaccines that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends for
administration to pregnant women. This revision will allow injuries
related to these vaccines to be eligible for the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program. Additionally, FDA intends to propose a new
rule that will modernize mammography quality by recognizing new
technologies, making improvements in facility processes, and the
reporting of breast density, which is now widely recognized as a risk
factor for breast cancer.
II. Empowering Individuals and Communities Through Reducing Regulatory
Burden
In order to make HHS programs more person-centered, the rulemakings
described above must be accompanied by serious efforts to decrease the
burden of complying with Federal regulations. Regulatory burden can
result from a variety of sources, including reporting requirements,
outdated restrictions, requirements and/or conditions not required by
the authorizing statutes, and a lack of clear regulatory guidelines.
HHS is committed to streamlining and clarifying its regulations to
reduce unnecessary burden while continuing to protect the public health
and to meet the human services needs of the American people.
Minimizing Duplication and Burdensome Requirements
The Department recognizes the burden that requirements for many of
its programs place on States, territories, tribes, local governments,
industry, providers and facilities, caseworkers, grant recipients, and
individuals. HHS plans to actively engage stakeholders in transparent,
deliberative processes to ensure that the Department strikes an
appropriate balance between reducing burden and continuing to
administer high-quality programs. For example, The Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) plans to issue an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its 2016 Final Rule on
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS),
which doubled reporting requirements for States and tribes. Through
careful consideration of all comments submitted by the public during
this process, ACF believes it can streamline the 2016 Rule so that
States and tribes are able to devote less time and fewer resources to
administrative work and redirect those efforts to the children they
serve.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to propose
changes to the current Conditions of Participation (CoPs) or Conditions
for Coverage (CfCs) that health care organizations must meet in order
to begin and continue participating in the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. These changes will simplify and streamline the current
regulations by reducing the frequency of certain required activities
and, where appropriate, revising timelines for certain requirements for
providers and suppliers. These changes will also increase provider
flexibility and reduce excessively burdensome regulations, while
allowing providers to focus on providing high-quality health care to
their patients. Ultimately, these proposals balance patient safety and
quality, while also providing broad regulatory relief for providers and
suppliers.
Through initiatives to eliminate regulatory burdens that negatively
impact the doctor-patient relationship, the Department will take steps
to remove duplicative requirements, streamline data collection and
reporting requirements, and make meaningful reforms to programs that
limit access to care. For example, CMS plans to finalize the physician
fee schedule, which will eliminate the redundant reporting of the
modifier in the professional claim to reduce burden for eligible
practitioners. The Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS), which
HHS has finalized for fiscal year 2018, also reduces the electronic
quality reporting measures from eight to four measures, to reduce
burden for eligible practitioners and ensure they are spending more
time caring for the patient rather than in front of a computer screen.
HHS intends to continue building on this progress in the next fiscal
year rule.
Eliminating Outdated Restrictions and Obsolete Regulations
In addition to minimizing regulatory burden, HHS realizes that many
of its regulations may contain provisions that are outdated, obsolete,
or otherwise not applicable to the current environment. HHS has
resolved to reform its processes so that those providing care and other
services to Americans are able to thrive within the State and federal
regulatory environment. As an early step in this broader effort, CMS
plans to issue a proposed rule that will remove unnecessary and
outdated requirements from the conditions of participation for the
Medicare and Medicaid programs for Long-Term Care facilities.
Currently, these requirements often impede the delivery of quality care
and divert resources away from facility residents.
Providing Necessary Regulatory Clarity to Industry Stakeholders
While the above rulemakings seek to correct overregulation, in some
cases, HHS programs lack the necessary regulations in order to make
their processes transparent and predictable. For example, in the
context of FDA's tobacco program, rulemaking is needed to clarify for
industry what is required to be included in premarket applications and
the procedures that will be followed in submitting and reviewing these
submissions as part of a comprehensive framework to regulate nicotine
and tobacco and advance the public health. In addition, FDA is updating
important rules for medical device applications so the rules reflect
risk-based and least burdensome pathways to market for devices,
including new and innovative devices. These rules will fill gaps to
ensure that manufacturers in these sectors know how to bring innovative
products to market that may save lives or reduce health risks. FDA
intends to begin rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these regulatory
gaps so that these processes become more fair, efficient, and
predictable.
In response to extensive outreach to physician stakeholders, HHS
anticipates a number of changes associated with private practice
physicians and their arrangements with Medicare Advantage Organizations
(MAOs). Of the nearly 200 regulatory burdens reported by more than 30
trade associations, 12 percent of the groups requested clarity with
regards to the ways MAOs audit physicians and their practices. CMS
plans on issuing a Part C and D rule for Contract Year 2019, that
responds to these concerns. The rule will also seek comment on ways to
improve MAO audits of solo practitioners and their practices.
III. Maximizing the Impact of Every Federal Dollar Spent
In order to truly protect and promote the health and wellbeing of
the American people, HHS must ensure that each and every taxpayer
dollar it spends is used wisely and managed responsibly. HHS's efforts
to reduce burden and move toward more person-centered programs must be
coupled with a department-wide determination to do more with the
resources that it has. By doing so, HHS hopes to use taxpayer funds
responsibly to reach as many Americans in need as possible
[[Page 1705]]
directly through its programs and to empower its community partners to
do the same.
Protecting the Integrity of HHS Programs
A key component of maximizing the impact of HHS's investments--and
protecting taxpayer dollars--is program integrity. Without consistent
efforts to identify fraud, waste, and abuse and respond accordingly,
the Department cannot be certain that its funds are going toward their
intended use nor can it maintain the public's confidence in its
programs. As such, the Department is committed to keeping program
integrity a priority in the coming years. This year, CMS plans to
finalize a rule that will implement crucial authorities provided by
Congress to deny or revoke a provider or supplier's Medicare enrollment
in certain circumstances specified in the rule. Additionally, HRSA
plans to publish an NPRM imposing civil monetary penalties on drug
manufacturers who knowingly and intentionally charge 340B program
participants a price higher than the program ceiling price.
Promoting Flexibility for States, Grantees, and Regulated Entities
Alongside program integrity activities, HHS intends to enhance
regulatory flexibility so that its State and community partners are
able to better tailor their programs to fit the needs of the people
they serve. Particularly in the context of the Secretary's three
clinical priorities--combatting the opioid crisis, childhood obesity,
and serious mental illness--the Department has begun looking seriously
at its programs to see how it can maximize the number of people reached
through amending its regulations to remove or change regulatory
limitations on grantees and regulated entities. Specifically, SAMHSA
plans to publish an NPRM exploring ways that it could better facilitate
the ability of individuals with an Opioid Use Disorder to access
interim maintenance treatment while they are waiting to begin a
comprehensive treatment plan. In addition, ACF plans to consider
revising minimum service duration requirements for Head Start center-
based programs. Rulemaking carried out in 2016 nearly doubled the
current minimum. If revised again, center-based Head Start programs
would likely be able to serve more children and choose a duration that
better reflects the needs and daily schedules of the families they
serve.
As a way of promoting flexibility for States, CMS also plans to
propose a rule related to Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care. This rule
would streamline the regulatory framework and provide burden reductions
to ensure state Medicaid agencies are able to work effectively with CMS
to design, develop, and deploy managed care programs that meet the
state population's needs. These changes support state flexibility,
local leadership, and innovation in the delivery of care.
In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans to consider a number of
regulatory and deregulatory actions intended to make its processes more
flexible, efficient, and transparent. In order to fully realize the
potential of these efforts, HHS recognizes the need for a collaborative
rulemaking process where the concerns of stakeholders are appropriately
considered. By working with its community partners to understand the
challenges that they face under HHS's current regulatory structures and
where there are opportunities for improvement, the Department hopes to
modernize and streamline its regulations to better serve the needs of
the American people.
HHS--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)
Proposed Rule Stage
25. HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption of Good Faith of
Healthcare Providers
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
(HIPAA) Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-191
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.510.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule would modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule to
clarify that healthcare providers are presumed to be acting in the
individual's best interests when they share information with an
incapacitated patient's family members unless there is evidence that a
provider was acted in bad faith.
Statement of Need: HIPAA allows medical professionals to share
protected health information with an individual's loved ones in
emergency or dangerous situations but misunderstandings to the contrary
persist and create obstacles to family support that is crucial to the
proper care, treatment, and recovery of people experiencing a crisis
situation. Therefore, the Department, through the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) intends to propose regulatory changes to the HIPAA Privacy
Rule to clarify that healthcare providers are presumed to be acting in
the individual's best interests when they share information with an
incapacitated patient's family members, unless there is evidence that a
provider acted in bad faith. OCR by delegation from the Secretary, has
broad authority under HIPAA to make modifications to the Privacy Rule,
as provided by section 264 of HIPAA (codified at 42 U.S.C. and 1320d-
2(note)).
Summary of Legal Basis: OCR has broad authority under the HIPAA
statute to make modifications to the Privacy Rule, within the statutory
constraints of the HITECH Act and other applicable law (e.g., the
Administrative Procedures Act).
Alternatives: The alternative is to not issue a proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will not create
any new requirements or costs for regulated entities or the public. It
will provide assurances to health care providers about their ability to
make disclosures that are in the best interests of patients.
Risks: OCR has not identified any risks associated with this
proposal. OCR currently defers to a healthcare provider's professional
judgment in these circumstances and has never taken enforcement action
against a healthcare provider who shared information in good faith,
thus, the proposed regulatory change will not decrease the privacy
protections for individuals' protected health information, or
significantly alter HIPAA enforcement policy.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Andra Wicks, Health Information Privacy Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 774-3081, TDD
Phone: 800 537-7697, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0945-AA09
HHS--OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (ONC)
Proposed Rule Stage
26. Health Information Technology: Interoperability and
Certification Enhancements
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
[[Page 1706]]
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-255
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule would update certain provisions of the
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of
2009 (HITECH Act) and implement certain provisions of the 21st Century
Cures Act (Cures Act) including provisions related to conditions of
certification and maintenance of certification for a health information
technology (IT) developer or entity, the voluntary certification of
health IT for use by pediatric health providers, health information
network voluntary attestation to their adoption of a trusted exchange
framework and common agreement in support of network-to-network
exchange, and provisions related to reasonable and necessary activities
that do not constitute information blocking.
Statement of Need: In part, Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act
requires the Secretary to engage in notice and comment rulemaking that
would help advance interoperability and the exchange of health
information, including by addressing information blocking. The
interoperability of health information is central to the efforts of the
Department of Health and Human Services to enhance and protect the
health and well-being of all Americans.
Summary of Legal Basis: The proposed provision would be implemented
under the authority of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the
HITECH Act and the Cures Act.
Alternatives: ONC will consider different options to improve
interoperability and access to electronic health information so that
the benefits to providers, patients, and payers are maximized and the
economic burden to health IT developers, providers, and other
stakeholders is minimized.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The majority of costs for this
proposed rule will be incurred by health IT developers in terms of
meeting new requirements and continual compliance with the regulations.
We expect, however, that through implementation and compliance with the
regulations the market particularly providers, patients, and payers
will benefit greatly from increased interoperability and access to
electronic heath information (e.g., the need for less interfaces or
making health information more accessible at lower costs). Other
proposed changes are aimed at relieving some administrative burdens for
health IT developers.
Risks: None identified at this time.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Michael Lipinski, JD, Director, Division of Federal
Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,
Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone:
202 690-7151.
RIN: 0955-AA01
HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
27. Certification of Opioid Treatment Programs
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Sec. 303(g) of the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA); (21 U.S.C. 823(g)) establishes procedures for determining
whether a health care practitioner can dispense opioid drugs for the
purpose of treating opioid use disorders
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would delete outmoded requirements for
transitional certification and add new language permitting private,
for-profit entities to serve as opioid treatment programs.
Statement of Need: SAMHSA plans to promulgate a rule to remove the
transitional certification provisions that are now outdated.
Additionally, updating language to permit private, for-profit entities
to serve as opioid treatment programs could improve patient access to
this treatment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 303(g) of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 823(g) establishes procedures for determining
whether a healthcare practitioner can dispense opioid drugs for the
purpose of treating opioid use disorders. HHS has adopted regulations
at 42 CFR part 8 to provide additional details. These regulations were
most recently substantively revised in July 2016 (81 FR 44712).
Alternatives: The alternatives include not making these changes or
making only one of the above changes rather than both (i.e., either
updating the regulatory language to permit private, for-profit entities
to serve as OTPs or removing the transitional certification provisions
but not both of these changes).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Eliminating outmoded transition
regulations will make the regulations less confusing. In addition,
permitting private, for-profit entities to qualify for certification
potentially will broaden access to opioid treatment programs. SAMHSA is
unsure how to quantify costs and benefits for these changes.
Risks: Some advocates may argue that controversies about patient
brokering raise questions about whether private, for-profit entities
would best uphold the interests of patients but SAMHSA has no specific
information that permitting private, for-profit entities to manage OTPs
will increase risks to patients.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, Director of Health Care Financing
and Systems Integration, Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke
Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0930-AA27
HHS--SAMHSA
Final Rule Stage
28. Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The action would finalize the proposed additional
clarifications to the part 2 regulations which were included in the
Supplemental NPRM published on January 18, 2017, (82 FR 5485). This
proposed to permit lawful holders and their contractors and
subcontractors' to, under certain
[[Page 1707]]
circumstances, use and disclose part 2-covered data for purposes of
carrying out payment, healthcare operations, and other healthcare
related activities.
Statement of Need: This action should improve information sharing
for purposes of carrying out payment, healthcare operations, and other
healthcare related activities.
Summary of Legal Basis: The governing statute, 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2,
establishes that records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or
treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the
performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse
education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or
research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly
assisted by any department or agency of the United States shall, except
as provided in subsection (e) of this section, be confidential. The
statute requires that HHS issue regulations, which are codified at 42
CFR part 2. SAMHSA. This final rule will adopt changes proposed in the
SNPRM.
Alternatives: Based on public comments, SAMHSA anticipates that
these modifications will enhance efficiency of such payment and health
care operations as claims processing, business management, training and
customer service. The alternative would be not to finalize these
changes in which case it would remain unclear in some cases as to when
and whether part 2 programs could work with contractors or
subcontractors on payment and health care operations activities.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes proposed will make it
easier for part 2 programs to work with contractors, subcontractors,
and legal representatives on payment and healthcare operations
activities. SAMHSA also will develop an abbreviated notice of
redisclosure that may make it easier for some entities to use
electronic health records.
Risks: None known.
This rule, if finalized, would permit lawful holders of part 2
information to work with contractors, subcontractors and legal
representatives to make additional disclosures of part 2 information
for certain payment and health care operations purposes when initial
patient consent is obtained. The rule includes language which provides
that the contractor and any subcontractor or legal representative are
or will be fully bound by the provisions of part 2 upon receipt of the
patient identifying data, and, as such that each disclosure shall be
accompanied by a required redisclosure notice. SAMHSA does not believe
the additional disclosures permitted will increase risks of data
breaches or other risks to patients.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, Director of Health Care Financing
and Systems Integration, Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke
Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0930-AA26
HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Proposed Rule Stage
29. Mammography Quality Standards Act; Regulatory Amendments
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
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 healthcare 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.
FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by
incorporating current science and mammography best practices, including
addressing breast density reporting to patients and health care
providers.
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................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Erica Blake-Payne, Regulatory Counsel, Department
of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 5522, 10903 New Hampshire
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-3999, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH04
HHS--FDA
30. Medical Device De Novo Classification Process
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
[[Page 1708]]
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 513; 21 U.S.C. 701
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 860.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: De novo classification decreases regulatory burdens
because manufacturers can use a less burdensome application pathway
under the FD&C Act to market their devices. The proposed rule would
establish procedures and criteria for the de novo process and would
make it more transparent and predictable for manufacturers.
Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to implement
amendments to the De Novo classification process in the FD&C Act that
were enacted by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997 (FDAMA), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), and the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016
(Cures).
Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as
amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of
medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act
established three categories (classes) of medical devices based on the
regulatory controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of the device. In 1997, Congress enacted
section 513()(2) to include a De Novo classification process for some
devices for which reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness
could be established through the De Novo process. FDASIA and cures
expanded and modified this process.
Alternatives: The De Novo classification process is based on
authority from the FD&C Act. The De Novo classification program must
continue because it is required by statute. If the proposed rule is not
finalized, then procedures and details about the application process
and handling of De Novo applications might be unclear to potential
applicants, and the program may not be as efficient as it might be.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By classifying the requirements for
the De Novo classification process. FDA expects that the rule would
reduce the time and costs associated with preparing and reviewing De
Novo requests, and would generate net benefits in the form of cost
savings for both private and government sectors.
Risks: If the proposed rule is not finalized, then some aspects of
the De novo classification process may not be clear, and potential
applicants may miss the opportunity for using this less burdensome
process when seeking premarket clearance. This could potentially delay
getting new medical devices to the market and to patients.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jean M. Olson, Regulatory Counsel, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Health and
Human Services, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 66, Room 5508,
Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-6579.
RIN: 0910-AH53
HHS--FDA
31. Requirement for Access or Safe use of Certain
Nonprescription Drug Products
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21
U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C. 264; . . .
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.56; 21 CFR 201.67.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule is intended to increase access to a
wider variety of nonprescription drug products. Under the proposed
rule, an applicant could submit an application to FDA for approval of a
nonprescription drug product with a requirement that ensures consumers'
appropriate self-selection, appropriate actual use, or both in order to
obtain the drug without a prescription.
Statement of Need: Nonprescription products have traditionally been
limited to drugs that can be labeled with information for consumers to
safely and appropriately self-select and use the drug product without
supervision of a health care provider. There are certain prescription
medications that may have comparable risk-benefit profiles to over-the-
counter medications in selected populations. However, appropriate
consumer selection and use may be difficult to achieve in the
nonprescription setting based solely on information that may be
included in labeling. FDA is proposing regulations that would allow for
approval of a nonprescription drug product that would have additional
requirements that could be met by consumers to obtain the drug without
a prescription. The proposed rule outlines a framework for the use of
innovative approaches to assist consumers with nonprescription drug
product self-selection or use. This pathway should lead to approval of
a wider range of nonprescription drug products.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's proposed revisions to the regulations
regarding labeling and applications for nonprescription drug products
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).
Alternatives: FDA evaluated various requirements for new drug
applications to assess flexibility of nonprescription drug product
design through drug labeling for appropriate self-selection and
appropriate use.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule
would include increased consumer access to drug products which could
translate to a reduction in under treatment of certain diseases and
conditions. Benefits to industry would arise from the flexibility in
drug product approval. The proposed rule would impose costs arising
from the development of an innovative approach to assist consumers with
nonprescription drug product self-selection or use.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Chris Wheeler, Supervisory Project Manager,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 51, Room 3330, Silver Spring, MD
20993, Phone: 301 796-0151, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH62
HHS--FDA
32. Medication Guides; Patient Medication Information
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
[[Page 1709]]
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C 321 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C.
264; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 208; 21 CFR 606.123 (new); 21 CFR 310.501 and
310.515 (removal); 21 CFR 201.57 (a)(18) (revision); 21 CFR
201.809(f)(2) (revision); 21 CFR 314.70(b)(2)(v)(B) (revision); 21 CFR
610.60(a)(7) (removal); . . .
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.
Research has shown that frequently the information received is
duplicative, incomplete, conflicting, or difficult to read and
understand and such information 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 adverse drug reactions due to incorrect use 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).
Alternatives: FDA evaluated providing additional guidance to
entities that supply patients information about prescription drugs and
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 and understandable information about their
prescription drug products. The proposed rule would impose costs that
stem from developing 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
FDA- approved Patient Medication Information for certain prescription
drug products used, dispensed, or administered on an outpatient basis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/ 00/ .......................
0;18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Chris Wheeler, Supervisory Project Manager,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 51, Room 3330, Silver Spring, MD
20993, Phone: 301 796-0151, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH68
HHS--FDA
33. Format and Content of Reports Intended To Demonstrate
Substantial Equivalence
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 21 U.S.C. 387; 42
U.S.C. 4332
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1107.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would establish the format and content
of reports intended to demonstrate substantial equivalence (SE) in
tobacco products and would provide information as to how the Agency
will review and act on these submissions.
Statement of Need: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act (Tobacco Control Act), requires premarket submissions for new
tobacco products. Substantial equivalence reports are one type of
premarket submission that manufacturers of new tobacco products may use
to obtain marketing authorization for a new tobacco product. This
regulation is necessary to provide information to manufacturers to aid
them in preparing and submitting substantial equivalence reports.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 905(j) of the FD&C Act, as amended
by the Tobacco Control Act, provides for the submission of substantial
equivalence reports and authorizes FDA to prescribe the form and manner
of these reports. Section 910 of the FD&C Act mandates the premarket
review of new tobacco products, establishes definitions of substantial
equivalence and characteristics, and requires health information as
part of a submission under section 905(j) of the FD&C Act. Section 909
establishes record and report requirements for tobacco products.
Sections 701 and 704 of the FD&C Act authorize the promulgation of
regulations to implement the FD&C Act and inspections.
Alternatives: In addition to the benefits and costs of the proposed
rule, FDA assessed the benefits and costs of several alternatives to
the proposed rule: (1) Extending the effective date of the rule, (2)
allowing for more deficiency letters and review cycles, and (3)
allowing for only one review cycle.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of the rule are compliance
costs on affected entities, e.g., to read and understand the rule, to
revise internal procedures, and fill out a form for substantial
equivalence reports. The quantified benefits of the proposed rule are
cost-savings resulting from shorter FDA review times and fewer staff to
review substantial equivalence reports. The cost savings to the
government is expected to be larger than the compliance cost for
industry and the net result is an overall net positive benefit from
this proposed rule. The qualitative benefits of the rule include
additional clarity to industry about the requirements for the content
and format of substantial equivalence reports, as well as the
establishment of procedures for substantial equivalence report review
and communication with applicants. These changes make the substantial
equivalence marketing pathway clearer for both FDA and applicants.
Risks: Premarket submissions for new tobacco products are required
by the FD&C Act. But to prepare premarket submissions such as
substantial equivalence reports intended to meet those requirements,
manufacturers need more information about content and
[[Page 1710]]
format requirements. This rule provides more information on content and
format requirements and describes possible FDA actions on the
substantial equivalence report.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Annette L. Marthaler, Regulatory Counsel,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Tobacco Products, Document Control Center, Building 71, Room
G335, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 877
287-1373, Fax: 877 287-1426, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH89
HHS--HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
34. 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer
Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 102-585: Veterans HealthCare Act of 1992
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 10.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the definition of
`knowingly and intentionally' at section 10.3 and amend section
10.10(b) regarding 340B ceiling price. The sections being amended were
included in a final rule that published on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1210;
RIN 0906-AA89). The January 5, 2017, final rule set forth the
calculation of the ceiling price and application of civil monetary
penalties.
Statement of Need: This statutorily required rule defines the
standards and methodology for the calculation of ceiling prices within
the 340B Program and imposes civil monetary penalties on drug
manufacturers who knowingly and intentionally charge a covered entity a
price above the 340B ceiling price.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule would implement provisions of
section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), referred to as
the 340B Drug Pricing Program or the 340B Program.
Alternatives: None. This rule implements statutory requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule will not have
economic impacts of $100 million or more in any 1 year, and, therefore,
has not been designated an economically significant rule under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule proposes to modify
current policy regarding calculation of the 340B ceiling price.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: CAPT Krista Pedley, Department of Health and Human
Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Services
and Resources Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 10C-03, Rockville, MD
20857, Phone: 301 443-5294, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0906-AA89
RIN: 0906-AB12
HHS--HRSA
35. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to
the Vaccine Injury Table
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 21st Century Cures Act; FR 114-255
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 100.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the Vaccine Injury Table
to include vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention for routine administration in pregnant women. The addition
of this category of vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table is necessary
to allow related injury claims to be eligible for adjudication through
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Statement of Need: This statutorily required regulation revises the
Vaccine Injury Table to include vaccines recommended by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration in pregnant
women. This category of vaccines must be added to the Table for such
injury claims to be eligible for adjudication through the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule would implement provisions of the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required
by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended.
Alternatives: None. This rule implements statutory requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An estimate of costs of this
regulation is not available at this time. There are no anticipated
costs to this regulation.
Risks: This category of vaccines must be added to the Table for
such injury claims to be eligible for adjudication through the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Tamara Overby, Deputy Director, Division of Injury
Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N142,
Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443-3766, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0906-AB14
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
36. Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2019
(CMS-4182-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-198, sec. 702; Pub. L. 114-255, secs.
17005 & 17006; 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 422; 42 CFR 423; 42 CFR 483; . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would set forth programmatic and
operational changes to the Medicare Advantage (MA) and prescription
drug benefit programs for contract year 2019.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to make revisions to the
MA program (Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D), and
other changes to the regulations based on our continued experience in
the administration of the Part C and Part D programs.
[[Page 1711]]
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of
the Social Security Act (including secs. 1102 and 1871) and the Public
Health Service Act. It also implements section 704 of the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) and sections 17005 and 17006 of the
21 st Century Cures Act.
Alternatives: This rule proposes approaches to improve the quality,
accessibility and affordability of the Medicare Part C and Part D
programs and to improve the CMS customer experience. The Agency will
consider options that support these improvements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule includes changes that
support innovative approaches by Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations
and Part D sponsors in administering the benefit and that prevent
improper provision of services, implementing changes in line with the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 and the 21st Century
Cures Act. We believe the proposed changes will result in a reduction
of burden to MA Organizations and Part D Sponsors and generate program
savings. As we move toward publication, estimates of the cost and
benefits of these provisions will be included in the rule.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, changes will not
be in place for contract year 2019.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Christian Bauer, Director, Division of Part D
Policy, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C1-26-16, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6043, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT08
HHS--CMS
37. Regulatory Provisions To Promote Program Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS-3346-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 263a, 273, 1302, 1320a-7, 1320b-8,1395,
1395eee(f),1395hh, 1395i, 1395rr, 1396r, 1396u-4(f)); 42 U.S.C. 273; 42
U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7; 42 U.S.C. 1320b-8; 42 U.S.C. 1395; 42
U.S.C. 1395eee(f); 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; 42 U.S.C. 1395i; 42 U.S.C. 1395rr;
42 U.S.C. 1396r; 42 U.S.C. 1396u-4(r)
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 403; 42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 418; . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would reform Medicare regulations that
CMS has identified as unnecessary, obsolete, or excessively burdensome
on healthcare providers and suppliers. This rule would increase the
ability of healthcare professionals to devote resources to improving
patient care by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede
quality patient care or that divert resources away from providing high
quality patient care.
Statement of Need: CMS is committed to transforming the healthcare
delivery system, and the Medicare program, by putting an additional
focus on patient-centered care and working with providers, physicians,
and patients to improve outcomes. We seek to reduce burdens for
hospitals, physicians, and patients, improve the quality of care,
decrease costs, and ensure that patients and their providers and
physicians are making the best healthcare choices possible.
We are therefore proposing changes to the current Conditions of
Participation (CoPs) or Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) that would
simplify and streamline the current regulations and thereby increase
provider flexibility and reduce excessively burdensome regulations,
while also allowing providers to focus on providing high-quality
healthcare to their patients.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Alternatives: From within the entire body of CoPs and CfCs, the
most viable candidates for reform were those identified by
stakeholders, by recent research, or by experts as unusually burdensome
if not changed. This subset of the universe of standards is the focus
of this proposed rule. For all of the proposed provisions, we
considered not making these changes or changing them in other manners.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule would create ongoing cost
savings to providers and suppliers in many areas and significant
additional health benefits. Other changes we have proposed would
clarify existing policy and relieve some administrative burdens.
Risks: Our estimates of the effects of this regulation are subject
to significant uncertainty. While we are confident that these reforms
will provide flexibilities to facilities that will yield major cost
savings, there are uncertainties about the magnitude of these effects.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Alpha-Banu Huq, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, MS: S3-
02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
8687, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT23
HHS--CMS
38. Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment
System and FY 2019 Rates (CMS-1694-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412; 42 CFR 413.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2018. Final, Statutory,
August 1, 2018.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare
hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment
systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed rule
would implement changes arising from our continuing experience with
these systems.
Statement of Need: CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital
inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-
related costs to implement changes arising from our continuing
experience with these systems. In addition, we describe the proposed
changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for
Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-
related costs. Also, CMS annually updates the
[[Page 1712]]
payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for
inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals
(LTCHs). The rule solicits comments on the proposed IPPS and LTCH
payment rates and new policies. CMS will issue a final rule containing
the payment rates for the FY 2019 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days
before October 1, 2018.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Social Security Act (the Act) sets
forth a system of payment for the operating costs of acute care
hospital inpatient stays under Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance)
based on prospectively set rates. The Act requires the Secretary to pay
for the capital-related costs of hospital inpatient and Long Term Care
stays under a PPS. Under these systems, Medicare payment for hospital
inpatient and Long Term Care operating and capital-related costs is
made at predetermined, specific rates for each hospital discharge.
These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after
October 1, 2018.
Alternatives: This proposed rule will provide descriptions of the
statutory provisions that are addressed, identify the proposed
policies, and present rationales for our decisions and alternatives
that were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2019; however, at this time, the impact is expected to affect
transfers only and not contain costs/benefits outside of Medicare
spending.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning
October 1, 2018.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Donald Thompson, Deputy Director, Division of Acute
Care, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-08-06, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6504, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT27
HHS--CMS
39. Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Regulatory
Provisions To Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden
Reduction (CMS-3347-P)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1819 and 1919 of the Social Security Act;
sec. 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act; sec.
1819(b)(1)(A) and 1919(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483; 42 CFR 488.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would reform the requirements that
long-term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs, that CMS has identified as unnecessary, obsolete, or
excessively burdensome on facilities. This rule would increase the
ability of healthcare professionals to devote resources to improving
resident care by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede
quality care or that divert resources away from providing high quality
care.
Statement of Need: CMS is committed to transforming the healthcare
delivery system, and the Medicare program, by putting an additional
focus on patient-centered care and working with providers, physicians,
and patients to improve outcomes. We seek to reduce burdens for long-
term care facilities; healthcare professionals and residents; improve
the quality of care; decrease costs; and, ensure that residents and
their providers are making the best healthcare choices possible.
We are therefore proposing revisions to the requirements that long-
term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs that would increase the ability of healthcare
professionals to devote resources to improving resident care by
eliminating or reducing requirements that impede quality care or that
divert resources away from providing high quality care.
Summary of Legal Basis: This proposed rule is in accordance with
the January 30, 2017 Executive Order Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771).
Alternatives: For all of the proposed provisions, we considered not
making these changes. Specifically, we considered the impact that any
revisions would have on the health and safety of residents in long-term
care facilities and if such revisions would realistically be burden
reducing for facilities. Ultimately, we believe that the proposed
revisions will be burden reducing and do not impede on the health and
safety of residents.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would create
ongoing cost savings to long-term care facilities in many areas. In
addition, various proposals would clarify existing policy and relieve
some administrative burdens.
Risks: Our estimates of the effects of this regulation are subject
to significant uncertainty. While we are confident that these reforms
would provide flexibilities to facilities that will yield major cost
savings, there are uncertainties about the magnitude of these effects.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ronisha Blackstone, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, MS: S3-
02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6882, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT36
HHS--CMS
40. Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care (CMS-2408-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 438.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would streamline the regulatory
framework and provide burden reductions to ensure state Medicaid
agencies are able to work effectively with CMS to design, develop, and
deploy managed care programs that meet the state population's needs.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would advance CMS' efforts to
streamline Medicaid and CHIP managed care and reflects a broader
strategy to relieve regulatory burdens; support state flexibility and
local leadership; empower the patient-doctor relationship
[[Page 1713]]
in health care; and promote transparency, flexibility, and innovation
in the delivery of care.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1102 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302).
Alternatives: The HHS letter to the nation's governors on March 14,
2017, committed to a review of the managed care regulations in order to
prioritize beneficiary outcomes and State priorities. We are reviewing
the managed care regulations in accordance with this commitment and
recommending appropriate rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule is intended to
streamline the federal requirements for Medicaid and CHIP managed care.
We anticipate that these changes will likely be economically
significant.
Risks: The current revisions of the regulations are intended to
ensure that the regulatory framework is efficient and feasible for
States to implement in a cost effective manner and address the risks
identified in previous rulemaking. This would ensure that States
operating State Medicaid and CHIP managed care programs can implement
program and fiscal integrities without undue administrative burdens.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: James Golden, Director, Division of Managed Care
Plans, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: S2-14-26,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-7111,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT40
HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Prerule Stage
41. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Sections 474(f), 479 and 1102 of the Social
Security Act
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeks public
suggestions in particular from state and tribal title IV-E agencies and
Indian tribes, tribal organizations and consortiums, for streamlining
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
data elements and removing any undue burden related to reporting
AFCARS.
Statement of Need: The reporting requirements for the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) have doubled in the
past year. In an effort to ensure that an appropriate balance is
achieved between reporting burden and administering high-quality
programs that provide services to children and families. By engaging in
this rulemaking process, the public and stakeholders will be afforded
an opportunity to provide input on what data collections are most
useful to the administration of child welfare programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 479 of the Social Security Act
requires HHS regulate a national data collection system which provides
comprehensive information on adopted and foster children and their
parents.
Alternatives: None. This rule implements statutory requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An estimate of costs to states to
modify their existing data systems is not available at this time.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kathleen McHugh, ACYF/Children's Bureau, Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Washington, DC 20013, Phone: 202 401-5789, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC72
HHS--ACF
Proposed Rule Stage
42. Head Start Service Duration Requirements
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Section 641A of the Head Start Act
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1302.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would address the requirement in the Head Start
Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) that increases service duration
for all Head Start center-based programs to a minimum of 1,020 hours.
Statement of Need: The Head Start Program Performance Standards
(HSPPS) regulation includes two requirements that increase service
duration for all Head Start center-based programs. The first
requirement, effective on August 1, 2019, requires center-based
programs to operate 50 percent of their slots for 1,020 annual hours.
The second requirement, effective August 1, 2021, requires center-based
programs to operate 100 percent of their slots for 1,020 annual hours.
Each requirement will go into effect unless the Secretary acts to lower
each percentage 18 months prior to its respective effective date. The
Secretary, through the HSPPS regulation, has the authority to lower the
50 percent requirement through a public notice. Elimination of the
1,020 annual hour requirements allows maximum flexibility for Head
Start grantees. Programs could choose to operate for longer than the
448-hour minimum based on demonstrated need in their communities, but
it would not be a requirement. The Head Start Act allows programs to
convert part-day slot to full-day or full-working-day slots.
Summary of Legal Basis: HHS believes that the Secretary could not
yet make a defensible determination to reduce the second requirement of
100 percent, based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient
funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment,
because the effective date of the 100 percent requirement is several
budget cycles away. With several years before the 100 percent
requirement would go into effect, there is sufficient time to complete
the regulatory notice and comment process and to issue a final rule
eliminating these duration requirements.
Alternatives: None. The service duration requirements were codified
in regulation and in order to remove the 100 percent requirement a
regulation must be issued.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated cost of the 100
percent Head Start center-based duration requirement (effective August
1, 2021) is approximately $1.2 billion.
Risks: Without additional funding, this requirement would likely
result in a loss of between 130,000 and 140,000 Head Start slots.
Timetable:
[[Page 1714]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director, Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 358-3263, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC73
BILLING CODE 4150-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Fall 2017 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 website at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall
2017 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.
Executive Order 13771 Requirements
In fiscal year 2018, DHS plans to finalize the following actions:
0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions;
15 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions (including
information collections);
5 Executive Order 13771-exempt regulations; and
9 regulations for which we are unsure of their Executive
Order 13771 designation. (Note: These are regulations that we
designated as ``other'' in the newly-created Executive Order 13771
designation data field in the Unified Agenda entries).
We provide further information about these actions in the DHS
Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda.
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.
The fall 2017 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 (FEMA), and the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion of
the regulations that comprise the DHS fall 2017 regulatory plan.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government
agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. USCIS's
role is to efficiently adjudicate and manage petitions, applications,
and requests for immigration benefits for foreign nationals seeking
lawful immigration status in the United States and for individuals
seeking to become citizens of the United States, and other matters
within the jurisdiction of the agency, in a manner that detects,
deters, and prevents fraud, protects the jobs and working conditions of
American workers as appropriate, and ensures the national security,
public safety, and welfare of the American people. In the coming year,
USCIS will promulgate several regulatory and deregulatory actions to
directly support these commitments and goals.
Rescission of International Entrepreneur Rule. USCIS will propose
to rescind the final rule published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2017. The final rule established 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 had
established a U.S. start-up entity, and who had 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.
Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible
for Employment Authorization. USCIS will
[[Page 1715]]
also propose to rescind the final rule published in the Federal
Register on February 25, 2015. The 2015 final rule amended DHS
regulations by extending eligibility for employment authorization to
certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are seeking
employment-based lawful permanent resident status.
H-1B Nonimmigrant Program and Petitioning Process Regulations. In
order to improve U.S. worker protections as well as to address the
requirements of Executive Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American,
USCIS proposes to issue regulations with the focus of improving the H-
1B nonimmigrant program and petitioning process. Such initiatives
include a proposed rule that would establish an electronic registration
program for H-1B petitions subject to annual numerical limitations and
would improve the H-1B numerical limitation allocation process
(Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B
Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations); and a
proposed rule that would revise the definition of specialty occupation
to increase focus on truly obtaining the best and brightest foreign
nationals via the H-1B program and would revise the definition of
employment and employer-employee relationship to help better protect
U.S. workers and wages. (Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa
Classification Program.)
Heightened Screening and Vetting of Immigration Programs
Regulations. USCIS will propose regulations guiding the inadmissibility
determination whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public
charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds.)
Employment Creation Immigrant Regulations. USCIS will amend its
regulations modernizing the employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5)
immigrant investor category based on current economic realities and to
reflect statutory changes made to the program. (EB-5 Immigrant Investor
Program Modernization). In addition, USCIS will propose to update its
regulations for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program to
better reflect realities for regional centers and EB-5 immigrant
investors, to increase predictability and transparency in the
adjudication process, to improve operational efficiency, and to enhance
program integrity. (EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program.)
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 the $4.5 trillion maritime transportation system, including
maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard 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 with
maritime stakeholders. Consistent standards of universal application
and enforcement, which encourage safe, efficient, and responsible
maritime commerce, are vital to the success of the maritime industry.
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 Coast Guard does not have significant regulatory actions
planned for the coming fiscal year; however, the Coast Guard is
highlighting the following Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
Marine Casualty Reporting Property Damage Thresholds. This rule
would raise the monetary property damage threshold for reporting a
marine casualty, and for reporting a type of marine casualty called a
``serious marine incident.'' Currently, whether and how a marine
casualty must be reported to the Coast Guard depends in part on the
dollar value of the property damage resulting from the casualty. The
dollar threshold amounts date to the 1980s and have not been updated to
keep pace with inflation; consequently, relatively minor casualties
must be reported and may require mandatory drug and alcohol testing.
Updating the thresholds would reduce a reporting burden on vessel owner
and operators, and reduce the Coast Guard resources expended to
investigate minor incidents. (Note: There is no associated Regulatory
Plan entry for this rule, because this rule is non-significant under
Executive Order 12866. There is an entry, however, in the Unified
Agenda.)
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.
[[Page 1716]]
In carrying out its 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. During the upcoming year, CBP will also be working on
various projects to streamline CBP processing, reduce duplicative
processes, reduce various burdens on the public, and automate various
paper forms. Below are descriptions of CBP's planned actions for fiscal
year 2018.
Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS). To address ongoing aviation
security threats, CBP intends to amend its regulations pertaining to
the submission of advance air cargo data to implement a mandatory Air
Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) program for any inbound aircraft
required to make entry under the CBP regulations that will have
commercial cargo aboard. The ACAS program will require the inbound
carrier or other eligible party to electronically transmit specified
advance cargo data (ACAS data) to CBP for air cargo transported onboard
U.S.-bound aircraft as early as practicable, but no later than prior to
loading of the cargo onto the aircraft. The ACAS program will enhance
the security of the aircraft and passengers on U.S.-bound flights by
enabling CBP to perform targeted risk assessments on the air cargo
prior to the aircraft's departure for the United States. These risk
assessments will identify and prevent high-risk air cargo from being
loaded on the aircraft that could pose a risk to the aircraft during
flight. CBP, in cooperation with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a
voluntary pilot program since 2010 and intends to publish an interim
final rule in the next fiscal year to implement ACAS as a regulatory
program.
Collection of Biometric Data Upon Entry to and Departure from the
United States. DHS is required by statute to develop and implement an
integrated, automated entry and exit data system to match records,
including biographic data and biometric identifiers, of aliens entering
and departing the United States. In addition, Executive Order 13780,
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
States, states that DHS is to expedite the completion and
implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system. Although the
current regulations provide that DHS may require certain aliens to
provide biometrics when entering and departing the United States, they
only authorize DHS to collect biometrics from certain aliens upon
departure under pilot programs at land ports and at up to 15 airports
and seaports. To provide the legal framework for DHS to begin a
comprehensive biometric entry-exit system, DHS intends to issue an
interim final rule in the next fiscal year to amend the regulations to
remove the references to pilot programs and the port limitation. In
addition, to facilitate the implementation of a seamless biometric
entry-exit system that uses facial recognition, this rule would also
provide that all travelers may be required to provide photographs upon
entry or departure.
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. 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.
Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders--Automation of CBP Form I-94W. During the
next fiscal year, CBP intends to amend DHS regulations to implement the
ESTA requirements under section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, for aliens who intend to enter the
United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at land ports of
entry. Currently, aliens from VWP countries must provide certain
biographic information to U.S. CBP officers at land ports of entry on a
paper I-94W Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-
94W). Under this rule, these VWP travelers will instead provide this
information to CBP electronically through ESTA prior to application for
admission to the United States. Travelers will bear opportunity costs
and CBP will bear information technology costs as a result of this
rule. Both travelers and CBP, however, will enjoy opportunity cost
savings as a result of this rule, resulting in an overall net savings.
In addition, the public will benefit from improved security.
Modernization of the Customs Brokers Regulations. CBP will issue a
proposed rule to amend the requirements for customs brokers.
Specifically, CBP will propose to simplify the broker permitting
framework by eliminating district permits and the corresponding
district permit requirements. Additionally, CBP will propose to update
the responsible supervision and control oversight framework to better
reflect the modern business environment. (Note: There is no associated
Regulatory Plan entry for this rule, because this rule is non-
significant under Executive Order 12866. There is an entry, however, in
the Unified Agenda.)
Automation of CBP Form I-418 for Vessels. CBP intends to issue this
rule amending the regulations regarding the submission of Form I-418,
Passenger List--Crew List. Currently, the master or agent of every
commercial vessel arriving in the United States, with limited
exceptions, must submit a paper Form I-418, along with certain
information regarding longshore work, to CBP at the port where
immigration inspection is performed. Most commercial vessel operators
are also required to submit a paper Form I-418 to CBP at the final U.S.
port prior to departing for a foreign port. Under this rule, most
vessel operators would be required to electronically submit the data
elements on Form I-418 to CBP through the National Vessel Movement
Center in lieu of submitting a paper form. This rule would eliminate
the need to file the paper Form I-418 in most cases. This will result
in an opportunity cost savings for vessel operators as well as a
reduction in their printing and storage costs. (Note: There is no
associated Regulatory Plan entry for this rule, because this rule is
not significant under Executive Order 12866. There is an entry,
however, in the Unified Agenda.)
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
[[Page 1717]]
and first responders, especially when they are most in need.
FEMA is working on various deregulatory actions in the coming
fiscal year. FEMA will propose to remove outdated regulations that
require publication of community loss of eligibility notices in the
Federal Register. (Removal of Federal Register Publication Requirement
for Community Loss of Eligibility Notices under the National Flood
Insurance Program. Note: There is no associated Regulatory Plan entry
for this rule, because this rule is non-significant under Executive
Order 12866. There is an entry, however, in the Unified Agenda.) FEMA
will also issue other deregulatory actions, such as removing
regulations with sunset programs, which will result in general cleanup
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for
Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster. In addition, FEMA plans to
promulgate this significant regulation during the fiscal year. The
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 requires the FEMA Administrator
to review, update, and revise through rulemaking the individual
assistance factors FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and
impact of a disaster. FEMA published a proposed rule on November 12,
2015, and now plans to issue a final rule.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2018.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
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 fiscal year 2018, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts
on three priority regulations: Increasing the fees paid to the Student
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to recover costs for services;
Flores Settlement Agreement provisions; and comprehensive reform of
practical training for foreign students with an F or M visa.
Below are ICE's significant regulatory actions for the coming
fiscal year:
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program. ICE will propose to adjust the fees that the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) charges individuals and organizations.
In 2016, SEVP conducted a comprehensive fee study and determined that
current fees do not recover the full costs of the services provided.
ICE has determined that adjusting fees is necessary to fully recover
the increased costs of SEVP operations, program requirements, and to
provide the necessary funding to sustain initiatives critical to
supporting national security. DHS will propose to adjust its fees for
individuals and organizations to establish a more equitable
distribution of costs and to establish a sustainable revenue level. The
SEVP fee schedule was last adjusted in a rule published on September
26, 2008.
Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors. ICE
will issue a proposed rule related to the detention, processing, and
release of alien children. In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the
policies of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
relating to the detention, processing, and release of alien children;
the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld
the constitutionality of the challenged INS regulations on their face
and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion. In January 1997, the parties reached a comprehensive
settlement agreement, referred to as the Flores Settlement Agreement
(FSA). The FSA was to terminate five years after the date of final
court approval; however, the termination provisions were modified in
2001, such that the FSA does not terminate until forty-five days after
publication of regulations implementing the agreement. Since 1997,
intervening statutory changes, including passage of the Homeland
Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have significantly
changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The
proposed rule will codify the substantive terms of the FSA and enable
the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation
concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, DHS will create a
pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying
the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions
of the TVPRA.
Practical Training Reform. ICE will issue a proposed rule that
improves protections of U.S. workers who may be negatively impacted by
employment of nonimmigrant students on F and M visas. The rule will be
a comprehensive reform of practical training options; it is intended to
reduce fraud and abuse.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is
a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of
life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance
the resilience of the Nation's physical and cyber infrastructure.
Although NPPD does not plan to finalize any significant regulations
within the next fiscal year, NPPD will undertake reviews of its
existing regulations in accordance with Executive Order 13771. NPPD is
also working on several future rulemaking projects, as reflected in the
Unified Agenda.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the
Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for
people and commerce. TSA applies an intelligence-driven, risk-based
approach to all aspects of TSA's mission. This approach results in
layers of security to mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. TSA
uses established processes, working with stakeholders, to review
programs, requirements, and procedures for appropriate modifications
based upon changes in the environment, whether those changes result
from an evolving threat or enhancements available through new
technologies.
For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing deregulatory
actions and regulatory actions that are required to meet statutory
mandates and that are necessary for national security. Below are the
planned TSA actions for fiscal year 2018.
Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will
finalize a rule 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 mandates of the Implementing Regulations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, (9/11 Act), which addressed recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission for enhancing the nation's security based upon
vulnerabilities identified in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. In
compliance with the definition of
[[Page 1718]]
frontline employees in pertinent provisions of the 9/11 Act, the rule
will include identification of which employees are required to receive
security training and the content of that training. The final rule will
also propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive
materials, as required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will
propose a rule 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 propose provisions to implement TSA's statutory requirement
to recover its cost of vetting through user fees. TSA is in the process
of determining the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. While many
stakeholders conduct background checks on their employees, their
actions are limited based upon the data they can access. Through this
rule, TSA will be able to conduct a more thorough check against
terrorist watch-lists of individuals in security-sensitive positions.
Amending Vetting Requirements for Employees with Access to a
Security Identification Display Area. The Aviation Security Act of 2016
mandates that TSA consider modifications to the list of disqualifying
criminal offenses and criteria, develop a waiver process for approving
the issuance of credentials for unescorted access, and propose an
extension of the look back period for disqualifying crimes. Based on
these requirements, and current intelligence pertaining to the
``insider threat'', TSA will propose revisions that enhance the
eligibility requirements and disqualifying criminal offenses for
individuals seeking or having unescorted access to any Security
Identification Display Area of an airport.
Protection of Sensitive Security Information. Through a joint
rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (DOT), TSA will
streamline existing requirements to protect sensitive security
information (SSI). This action finalizes an Interim Final Rule for a
statutorily-required regulation related to national security. The rule
amends TSA's and DOT's regulations to provide three options for the SSI
distribution statement, one significantly abbreviated, to address
concerns that the current marking requirements are unduly burdensome.
TSA is considering further deregulatory action to align the requirement
for the handling of Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) names consistent
with the handling of Federal Air Marshal names (two names listed
together qualify as SSI). The modification to TSA's SSI regulations
would protect lists of FFDO names, rather than a single FFDO name.
(Note: There is no associated Regulatory Plan entry for this rule,
because this rule is non-significant under Executive Order 12866. There
is an entry, however, in the Unified Agenda.)
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport: Enhanced Security
Procedures for Certain Operations. This IFR reopened Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport (DCA) to general aviation (GA) aircraft
operations after an approximately four-year closure (from September
2001 to August 2005) with measures in place to minimize the security
risk to vital government assets in the Washington, DC metropolitan
area. While prohibiting GA access to DCA imposes an economic hardship
on these operations, access without appropriate security measures
increases the risk of an airborne strike originating from DCA. Under
the requirements of this regulation, aircraft operations into and out
of DCA must have and implement a DCA Access Standard Security Program
(DASSP) approved by TSA.
In response to recommendations from industry submitted through the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), TSA is assessing the risks
associated with eliminating a requirement to have an armed security
officer on flights accessing DCA. The DASSP requires each aircraft
operating into or out of DCA with passengers to have onboard at least
one armed security officer. The only exception to this requirement is
for flights with a Federal Air Marshal on board. After this requirement
was put in place, TSA implemented the Secure Flight program, which
provides for vetting of passengers against the Terrorist Screening
Database. The requirement for an armed security officer could be
modified, and TSA could accept other alternative procedures, including
Secure Flight vetting, that provide commensurate levels of security at
lower costs. These procedures could include a requirement to limit
passengers and crewmembers to those with a Known Traveler Number (KTN).
A critical dependency for this proposed repeal of the armed security
officer requirement would be the ability of DHS/TSA to quickly process
requests for KTNs and the willingness of the regulated parties to bear
the cost of obtaining a KTN.
This rule would streamline TSA's regulations to eliminate a burden
no longer necessary under the current operating environment, and result
in a net benefit, most likely to small businesses providing GA
services. Finalizing this rule will ensure the continued balance
between providing access and ensuring vital government assets in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. The security requirements in the
final rule are necessary to defeat the threat posed by members of
terrorist groups to vital U.S. assets and security in a manner that
protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of
movement for people and commerce.
Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals;
Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees. This rule
would streamline regulations and reduce burden for the alien flight
student program (AFSP). This action finalizes an IFR for a national
security rule that is required to implement a statutory requirement.
The AFSP program requires security threat assessments for aliens
seeking flight training in the United States and imposes additional
security measures on the flight schools training these individuals. In
response to recommendations from industry through the ASAC, TSA is
considering revising these requirements to reduce costs and industry
burden. For example, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the
program are estimated at an annual cost of $7.4 million, discounted at
7 percent. These costs include maintaining paper records on alien
flight students. TSA is considering an electronic recordkeeping
platform where all flight providers would upload required student
information to a TSA-managed website. Also at industry's request, TSA
is considering changing the interval for security threat assessments of
alien flight students, eliminating the requirement for a new security
threat assessment for each ``training event.'' A related change to the
current information collection request pertaining to the AFSP program
will be part of this deregulatory action.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulations planned for fiscal year 2018.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2018
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise the DHS fall regulatory plan follows.
[[Page 1719]]
DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
43. Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and 1183; . .
.
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 237; 8 CFR 245a.18.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose
regulatory provisions guiding the inadmissibility determination on
whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge under
section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS proposes to add a regulatory provision, which
would define the term public charge and would outline DHS's public
charge considerations.
Statement of Need: To ensure that foreign nationals coming to the
United States or adjusting status to permanent residence, either
temporarily or permanently, have adequate means of support while in the
United States, and that foreign nationals do not become dependent on
public benefits for support.
Summary of Legal Basis: INA 212(a)(4).
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In
general, DHS anticipates that by clarifying the meaning of public
charge some stakeholders would incur costs. The anticipated costs to
individuals requesting immigration benefits are associated with the
opportunity cost of time to complete and file required forms and
documentation, and possible costs associated with any additional
background checks. DHS anticipates there will be benefits associated
with ensuring that foreign nationals coming to the United States have
adequate means of support and do not become dependent on public
assistance.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/26/99 64 FR 28676
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/26/99
NPRM................................ 07/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: CIS No. 1989-99. Transferred from RIN 1115-
AF45.
Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA22
DHS--USCIS
44. Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File H-1B
Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security proposes to amend its
regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of alien workers
subject to annual numerical limitations. This rule proposes to
establish an electronic registration program for petitions subject to
numerical limitations for the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. This
action is being considered because the demand for H-1B specialty
occupation workers by U.S. companies has often exceeded the numerical
limitation. This rule is intended to allow USCIS to more efficiently
manage the intake and lottery process for these H-1B petitions. The
Department published a proposed rule on this topic in 2011. The
Department intends to publish an additional proposed rule in 2018. The
proposal may include a modified selection process, as outlined in
section 5(b) of Executive Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American.
Statement of Need: This regulation would help to streamline the
process for administering the H-1B cap process and to ensure that H-1B
visas are awarded to the most skilled or highest-paid petition
beneficiaries.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives: DHS is currently in the process of considering
policies that align with our overarching goals of ensuring the
allocation of H-1B cap numbers are provided to the best and brightest
foreign national beneficiaries, and ensuring that the operational
process is as efficient as possible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While DHS is currently in the
process of assessing the costs and benefits of the policy changes under
consideration, DHS believes that in aggregate the proposed changes
would result in better resource management and predictability for both
USCIS and petitioning employers. DHS anticipates that implementing a
pre-registration process could benefit the regulated public by
potentially reducing the cost and time involved in petitioning for H-1B
nonimmigrants, through an up-front cap selection process where only
those employers who have obtained a cap number would be required to
submit the entire Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/03/11 76 FR 11686
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/02/11
NPRM................................ 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: USCIS 2443-08. Includes Retrospective
Review under E.O. 13563.
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: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB71
DHS--USCIS
45. Rescission of International Entrepreneur Rule
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On January 17, 2017, DHS published the International
Entrepreneur Final Rule (the IE final rule) in the Federal Register at
82 FR 5238, with an original effective date of July 17, 2017. On July
11, 2017, DHS published a final rule at 82 FR 31887 delaying the
effective date of the IE final
[[Page 1720]]
rule until March 14, 2018, to allow for a full review of the rule. This
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will propose to rescind the IE
final rule. The NPRM will solicit public comments on the proposal to
rescind the IE final rule.
Statement of Need: DHS is reviewing the IE final rule in light of
issuance of Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration
Enforcement.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary's authority for this proposed
regulatory amendment can be found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and INA
section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give the Secretary the authority to
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, as well as
INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), which refers to the
Secretary's discretionary authority to grant parole and provides DHS
with regulatory authority to establish terms and conditions for parole
once authorized.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The economic costs of the IE final
rule would have resulted from the filing costs of principal applicants
applying for parole and from the associated filing costs of dependents
of principal applicants. Therefore, this proposal to withdraw the IE
final rule would result in those costs not being realized. This
withdrawal of the IE final rule would also result in time saved by DHS
adjudicators, as they would not be required to process the relevant
parole applications. Furthermore, DHS would also save from expending
any additional costs in technology and related systems updates that
would otherwise be necessary.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/31/16 81 FR 60129
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/17/16
Final Rule.......................... 01/17/17 82 FR 5238
Final Rule Effective................ 07/17/17 .......................
Final Rule Delay of Effective Date.. 07/11/17 82 FR 31887
NPRM................................ 11/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC04
DHS--USCIS
46. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5); Pub. L. 102-395, secs. 610
and 601(a); Pub. L. 107-273, sec. 11037; Pub. L. 101-649, sec. 121(a);
Pub. L. 105-119, sec. 116; Pub. L. 106-396, sec. 402; Pub. L. 108-156,
sec. 4; Pub. L. 112-176, sec. 1; Pub. L. 114-113, sec. 575; Pub. L.
114-53, sec. 131; Pub. L. 107-273
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 216.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering
making regulatory changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional
Center Program. DHS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) to seek comment from all interested stakeholders on several
topics, including: (1) The process for initially designating entities
as regional centers, (2) a potential requirement for regional centers
to utilize an exemplar filing process, (3) continued participation
requirements for maintaining regional center designation, and (4) the
process for terminating regional center designation. While DHS has
gathered some information related to these topics, the ANPRM sought
additional information that can help the Department make operational
and security updates to the Regional Center Program while minimizing
the impact of such changes on regional center operations and EB-5
investors.
Statement of Need: Based on decades of experience operating the
program, DHS has determined that program changes are needed to better
reflect business realities for regional centers and EB-5 immigrant
investors, to increase predictability and transparency in the
adjudication process for stakeholders, to improve operational
efficiency for the agency, and to enhance program integrity.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still in the process of
reviewing potential changes it would propose to the regional center
process. DHS may propose to implement an exemplar filing requirement
for all designated regional centers that would require regional centers
to file exemplar project requests. An exemplar filing requirement could
cause some projects to not go forward, but DHS is still in the process
of assessing the impacts on the number of projects that may be
affected. DHS anticipates that any proposed changes to the regional
center program would increase overall program efficiency and
predictability for both USCIS and EB-5 stakeholders.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 01/11/17 82 FR 3211
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 04/11/17
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Lori S. MacKenzie, Division Chief, Operations
Policy & Stakeholder Communications, 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: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC11
DHS--USCIS
47. Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification
Program
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to
revise the definition of specialty occupation to increase focus on
obtaining the best and the brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B
program,
[[Page 1721]]
and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee
relationship to better protect U.S. workers and wages. In addition, DHS
will propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay
appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.
Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to ensure that
H-1B visas are awarded only to individuals who will be working in a job
which meets the statutory definition of specialty occupation. In
addition, these changes are intended to ensure that the H-1B program
supplements the U.S. workforce and strengthens U.S. worker protections.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the cost
and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In general, DHS
anticipates that there may be some filing fees and opportunity costs of
time in preparing and filing forms for the eligible population. DHS
also anticipates benefits in the form of reduced fraud and abuses of
the current H-1B program.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: 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: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC13
DHS--USCIS
48. Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses From the Class of Aliens
Eligible for Employment Authorization
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a); 8 U.S.C.
1184(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1324a(H)(3)(B)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On February 25, 2015, DHS published a final rule
extending eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4
dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are seeking employment-
based lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. DHS is publishing this
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend that 2015 final rule. DHS is
proposing to remove from its regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B
nonimmigrants as a class of aliens eligible for employment
authorization.
Statement of Need: DHS is reviewing the 2015 final rule in light of
issuance of Executive Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security
(Secretary) has the authority to amend this regulation under 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
addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), provides
the Secretary with authority to prescribe the time and conditions of
nonimmigrants' admissions to the United States. Also, section
274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the
Secretary's discretionary authority to extend employment authorization.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS anticipates that there would be
two primary impacts that DHS can estimate: The cost-savings accruing to
forgone future filings by H-4 spouses, and labor turnover costs that
employers of H-4 workers could incur.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 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: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB92
RIN: 1615-AC15
DHS--USCIS
Final Rule Stage
49. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6; 8 CFR 216.6.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In January 2017, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) proposed to amend its regulations governing the employment-based,
fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant investor classification. In general,
under the EB-5 program, individuals are eligible to apply for lawful
permanent residence in the United States if they make the necessary
investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and create
or, in certain circumstances, preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for
qualified U.S. workers. This rule sought public comment on a number of
proposed changes to the EB-5 program regulations. Such proposed changes
included: Raising the minimum investment amount; allowing certain EB-5
petitioners to retain their original priority date; changing the
designation process for targeted employment areas; and other
miscellaneous changes to filing and interview processes.
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
[[Page 1722]]
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: Due to data limitations and the
complexity of EB-5 investment structures, it is difficult to quantify
and monetize the costs and benefits of the proposed provisions, with
the exception of application costs for dependents who would file the
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident
Status (Form I-829) separately from principal investors, and
familiarization costs to review the rule.
The proposal to raise the investment amounts and reform the
targeted employment area (TEA) geography could deter some investors
from participating in the EB-5 program. The increase in investment
could reduce the number of investors as they may be unable or unwilling
to invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. On the other
hand, raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by
each investor and thereby potentially increases the total economic
benefits of U.S. investment under this program. The proposed TEA
provision would rule out TEA configurations that rely on a large number
of census tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by
numerous degrees of separation, and may better target investment
capital to areas where unemployment rates are the highest.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/13/17 82 FR 4738
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/11/17
Final Action........................ 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Lori S. MacKenzie, Division Chief, Operations
Policy & Stakeholder Communications, 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: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB69
RIN: 1615-AC07
DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)
Final Rule Stage
50. Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2071 note
CFR Citation: 19 CFR 122.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: To address ongoing aviation security threats, CBP intends
to amend its regulations pertaining to the submission of advance air
cargo data to implement a mandatory Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
program for any inbound aircraft required to make entry under the CBP
regulations that will have commercial cargo aboard. The ACAS program
will require the inbound carrier or other eligible party to
electronically transmit specified advance cargo data (ACAS data) to CBP
for air cargo transported onboard U.S.-bound aircraft as early as
practicable, but no later than prior to loading of the cargo onto the
aircraft. The ACAS program will enhance the security of the aircraft
and passengers on U.S.-bound flights by enabling CBP to perform
targeted risk assessments on the air cargo prior to the aircraft's
departure for the United States. These risk assessments will identify
and prevent high-risk air cargo from being loaded on the aircraft that
could pose a risk to the aircraft during flight.
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 departure.
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 U.S.-bound aircraft.
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. To address ongoing aviation
security threats, CBP is transitioning the ACAS pilot program into an
ongoing mandatory regulatory 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 receiving the
data earlier.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment
[[Page 1723]]
effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Craig Clark, Branch Chief, Advance Data Programs
and Cargo Initiatives, 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
51. Collection of Biometric Data Upon Entry to and Exit From the United
States
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1365a; 8 U.S.C. 1365b
CFR Citation: 19 CFR 215.8; 19 CFR 235.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required by
statute to develop and implement an integrated, automated entry and
exit data system to match records, including biographic data and
biometric identifiers, of aliens entering and departing the United
States. In addition, Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, published in the
Federal Register at 82 FR 13209, states that DHS is to expedite the
completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking
system. Although the current regulations provide that DHS may require
certain aliens to provide biometrics when entering and departing the
United States, they only authorize DHS to collect biometrics from
certain aliens upon departure under pilot programs at land ports and at
up to 15 airports and seaports. To provide the legal framework for CBP
to begin a comprehensive biometric entry-exit system, DHS is amending
the regulations to remove the references to pilot programs and the port
limitation. In addition, to facilitate the implementation of a seamless
biometric entry-exit system that uses facial recognition, DHS is
amending the regulations as they pertain to the provision of
photographs upon entry and exit.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to provide the legal
framework for DHS to begin implementing a comprehensive biometric
entry-exit system. Collecting biometrics at departure will allow CBP
and DHS to know with better accuracy whether aliens are departing the
country when they are required to depart, reduce visa fraud, and
improve CBP's ability to identify criminals and known or suspected
terrorists before they depart the United States.
Summary of Legal Basis: Numerous Federal statutes require DHS to
create an integrated, automated biometric entry and exit system that
records the arrival and departure of aliens, compares the biometric
data of aliens to verify their identity, and authenticates travel
documents presented by such aliens through the comparison of biometric
identifiers. See, e.g., Immigration and Naturalization Service Data
Management Improvement Act of 2002, the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the 2016 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. In addition, Executive Order 13780, Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, states that
DHS is to expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric
entry-exit tracking system.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will allow CBP to know
with greater certainty whether foreign visa holders depart the country
when required. It will also prevent visa fraud and allow CBP to more
easily identify criminals or terrorists when they attempt to leave the
country. The technology used to implement this rule could also
eventually be used to modify entry and exit procedures to reduce
processing and wait times. This rule imposes opportunity and technology
acquisition and maintenance costs on CBP and opportunity costs on the
traveling public.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Michael Hardin, Deputy Director, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Customs and
Border Protection, Entry/Exit Policy and Planning, 1300 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Office of Field Operations, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229,
Phone: 202 325-1053, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AB12
DHS--USCBP
52. Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders--Automation of CBP Form I-94W
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-53
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 217.2; 8 CFR 217.3; 8 CFR 217.5; 8
CFR 286.9.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
regulations to implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA) requirements under section 711 of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, for aliens who
intend to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)
at land ports of entry. Currently, aliens from VWP countries must
provide certain biographic information to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officers at land ports of entry on a paper I-94W
Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94W). Under
this rule, these VWP travelers will instead provide this information to
CBP electronically through ESTA prior to application for admission to
the United States. DHS has already implemented the ESTA requirements
for aliens who intend to enter the United States under the VWP at air
or sea ports of entry.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to implement the
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under section 711 of
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 for
aliens who intend to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver
Program at land ports of entry. ESTA was implemented at air and sea
ports of entry in 2008. At that time, however, CBP did not have the
ability to implement the program at land ports of entry. This rule will
ensure that ESTA is now implemented at all ports of entry.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In addition to fulfilling a
statutory mandate, the ESTA Land rule will strengthen national security
through enhanced traveler vetting, streamline entry processing through
Form I-94W automation, reduce inadmissible traveler arrivals, and
produce a consistent, modern VWP admission policy in all U.S. travel
environments, which will benefit VWP travelers, CBP, and the public.
The rule will also introduce time and fee costs to VWP
[[Page 1724]]
travelers required to complete an ESTA application.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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-AB14
DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
53. Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 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 Public Law 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 one year from the
date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
Abstract: The 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 the required vetting.
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................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145,
Email: [email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief 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].
Laura Gaudreau, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-1088, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55
RIN: 1652-AA69
DHS--TSA
54. Amending Vetting Requirements for Employees With Access to a
Security Identification Display Area (SIDA)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-190, sec. 3405
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1524.209.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 11, 2017, Rule for
individuals with unescorted access to any Security Identification
Display Area (SIDA) due 180 days after date of enactment.
According to sec, 3405 of Title III of the FAA Extension, Safety,
and Security Act, 2016 (Aviation Security Act of 2016), Public Law 114-
190 (130 Stat. 615, July 15, 2016), a final rule revising the
regulations under 49 U.S.C. 44936 is due 180 days after the date of
enactment.
Abstract: As required by the Aviation Security Act of 2016, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose a rule to
revise its regulations, with current knowledge of insider threat and
intelligence, to enhance the eligibility requirements and disqualifying
criminal offenses for individuals seeking or having unescorted access
to any SIDA of an airport. Consistent with the statutory mandate, TSA
will consider adding to the list of disqualifying criminal offenses and
criteria, develop a waiver process for approving the issuance of
credentials for unescorted access, and propose an extension of the look
back period for disqualifying crimes.
Statement of Need: Employee vetting is an important and effective
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those with
malicious intent who wish to target aviation and plan or perpetrate
actions that may cause significant injuries, loss of life, or economic
disruption. Enhancing eligibility standards for airport workers will
improve transportation and national security.
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................................ 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis
Branch--Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and
Industry
[[Page 1725]]
Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571
227-5839, Email: [email protected].
John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-4416, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA11
RIN: 1652-AA70
DHS--TSA
Final Rule Stage
55. Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals;
Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 469(b); 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 44939;
49 U.S.C. 46105
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1552.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, February 10, 2004, sec. 612(a) of
Vision 100 requires TSA to issue an interim final rule within 60 days
of enactment of Vision 100.
Requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to
establish a process to implement the requirements of sec. 612(a) of
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176,
Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), including the fee provisions, not later
than 60 days after the enactment of the Act.
Abstract: The interim final rule (IFR) was published and effective
on September 20, 2004. The IFR created a new part 1552, Flight Schools,
in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This IFR applies
to flight schools and to individuals who apply for or receive flight
training. TSA subsequently issued exemptions and interpretations in
response to comments on the IFR and questions raised during operation
of the program since 2004. TSA also issued a fee notice on April 13,
2009. This regulation requires flight schools to notify TSA when
aliens, and other individuals designated by TSA, apply for flight
training or recurrent training. TSA is considering a final rule that
would change the frequency of security threat assessments from a high-
frequency event-based interval to a time-based interval, clarify the
definitions and other provisions of the rule, and enable industry to
use TSA-provided electronic recordkeeping systems for all documents
required to demonstrate compliance with the rule.
Statement of Need: In the years since TSA published the IFR,
members of the aviation industry, the public, and Federal oversight
organizations have identified areas where the Alien Flight Student
Program (AFSP) could be improved. TSA's internal procedures and
processes for vetting applicants also have improved and advanced.
Publishing a final rule that addresses external recommendations and
aligns with modern TSA vetting practices would streamline the AFSP
application, vetting, and recordkeeping process for all parties
involved.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is considering revising the
requirements of the AFSP to reduce costs and industry burden. For
example, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the program are
estimated at an annual cost of $7.4 million, discounted at seven
percent. This cost includes maintaining paper records on alien flight
students. TSA is considering an electronic recordkeeping platform where
all flight providers would upload certain information to a TSA-managed
website. Also at industry's request, TSA is considering changing the
interval for a security threat assessment of each alien flight student,
eliminating the requirement for a security threat assessment for each
separate training event. This change would result in an annual savings,
although there may be additional start-up and record retention costs
for the agency as a result of these revisions. The benefits of these
deregulatory actions would be immediate cost savings to flight schools
and alien students without compromising the security profile.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule; Request for 09/20/04 69 FR 56324
Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 09/20/04 .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period 10/20/04 .......................
End.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 11/26/04 69 FR 68952
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 03/30/05 70 FR 16298
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 06/06/08 73 FR 32346
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 08/13/08 73 FR 47203
Day Renewal.
Notice--Alien Flight Student Program 04/13/09 74 FR 16880
Recurrent Training Fees.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 09/21/11 76 FR 58531
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 01/31/12 77 FR 4822
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 03/10/15 80 FR 12647
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 06/18/15 80 FR 34927
Day Renewal.
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Johannes Knudsen, Program Manager, Alien Flight
Student Program, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone: 571 227-2188, Email:
[email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief 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].
David Ross, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2465, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA61
RIN: 1652-AA35
[[Page 1726]]
DHS--TSA
56. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport: Enhanced Security
Procedures for Certain Operations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 41718
note; 49 U.S.C. 44901 to 44905; 49 U.S.C. 44916 to 44918; 49 U.S.C.
46105
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1562.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The interim final rule (IFR), published by the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on July 19, 2005, created
a new part 1562, subpart B, for General Aviation (GA), in title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The IFR restored access to
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) for passenger aircraft
operations not otherwise regulated under 49 CFR 1546.101(a) or (b)
(foreign air carriers) or 49 CFR part 1544 (U.S. air carriers operating
under a full security program). From September 11, 2001, until the IFR
became effective on August 18, 2005, GA aircraft operations had been
prohibited at DCA. The IFR reopened access to the extent requirements
are met to maintain the security of critical Federal Government and
other assets in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. In general, this
rule requires GA aircraft operators to adopt and carry out security
measures that are comparable to the security measures required of
regularly scheduled, commercial aircraft. This rule also established
security procedures for GA aircraft operators and gateway airport
operators, and security requirements relating to crewmembers,
passengers, and armed security officers onboard aircraft operating to
or from DCA. TSA plans to take final action on the IFR to respond to
the public comments and close out this rulemaking. TSA is also
considering a recommendation from the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee to remove the armed security officer requirement for flights
operating under the DCA Access Standard Security Program to the extent
other security safeguards are in effect, such as all passengers onboard
the flight having a Department of Homeland Security Known Traveler
Number (KTN).
Statement of Need: The purpose of this regulation is to allow GA
aircraft operations access to DCA without decreasing the security of
vital government assets in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
Prohibiting GA access to DCA imposes an economic hardship on these
operations. But access, without appropriate security measures,
increases the risk that an airborne strike initiated from DCA, located
moments away from vital national assets, could occur. While TSA
recognizes that such an impact may not cause substantial damage to
property or a large structure, it could potentially result in an
undetermined number of fatalities and injuries, as well as reduced
tourism. The resulting tragedies would adversely impact the regional
economies. Finalizing the IFR will ensure the continued balance between
these interests; providing access without decreasing security of the
vital government assets in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The
security requirements in the final rule are necessary to defeat the
threat posed by members of terrorist groups to vital U.S. assets and
security, in a manner that protects the nation's transportation systems
to ensure freedom of movement.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If TSA repeals the requirement for
an ASO, with acceptance of alternative procedures in its place, this
modification is likely to provide commensurate levels of security at
lower costs. To the extent these alternative procedures include a
requirement for all passengers and crewmembers to have a KTN, there is
a dependency linked to the ability of DHS/TSA to quickly process
requests for KTNs and the willingness of the regulated parties (or
their passengers) to bear the cost of obtaining a KTN. The benefits of
the repeal of the ASO requirement would be cost savings to DASSP
operators from no longer having to hire an ASO. DASSP operators would
receive a cost savings from no longer hiring an ASO for each departure
from or arrival into DCA.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule; Request for 07/19/05 70 FR 41586
Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/18/05 .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period 09/19/05 .......................
End.
Notice--Information Collection; 08/26/05 70 FR 50391
Approval and 60-Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 10/26/05 70 FR 61831
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 10/20/08 73 FR 62304
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 12/29/08 73 FR 79499
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 02/29/12 77 FR 12321
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 04/27/12 77 FR 25188
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60- 01/03/16 81 FR 943
Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30- 03/17/16 81 FR 14470
Day Renewal.
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Knott, Branch Manager, Industry Engagement
Branch--Aviation Division, Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and
Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-4370, Email: [email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief 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].
David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3583 Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA08
RIN: 1652-AA49
[[Page 1727]]
DHS--TSA
57. Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1405, 1408,
1501, 1512, 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 Public Law 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 one 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 six months
after the date of enactment.
Abstract: The 9/11 Act requires security training for employees of
higher-risk freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies
(including rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad
carriers, and over-the-road bus (OTRB) companies. This final rule
implements the regulatory mandate. Owner/operators of these higher-risk
railroads, systems, and companies will be required to train employees
performing security-sensitive functions, using a curriculum addressing
preparedness and how to observe, assess, and respond to terrorist-
related threats and/or incidents. As part of this rulemaking, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is expanding its current
requirements for rail security coordinators and reporting of
significant security concerns (currently limited to freight railroads,
passenger railroads, and the rail operations of public transportation
systems) to include the bus components of higher-risk public
transportation systems and higher-risk OTRB companies. TSA is also
adding a definition for Transportation Security-Sensitive Materials
(TSSM). Other provisions are being amended or added, as necessary, to
implement these additional requirements.
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 Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).
Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations
requiring security training programs for these owner/operators. As part
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA sought public comment on
alternatives in which the final rule could carry out the requirements
of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Owner/operators will incur costs for
training their employees, developing a training plan, maintaining
training records, and participating in inspections for compliance. Some
owner/operators will also incur additional costs associated with
assigning security coordinators and reporting significant security
incidents to TSA. TSA will incur costs associated with reviewing owner/
operators' training plans, registering owner/operators' security
coordinators, responding to owner/operators' reported significant
security incidents, and conducting inspections for compliance with this
rule. In the NPRM, TSA estimated the annual cost from this regulation
to be approximately $22 million, discounted at 7 percent. 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................................ 12/16/16 81 FR 91336
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/16/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145,
Email: [email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief 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, Regulations and Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of 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--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)
Proposed Rule Stage
58. Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange
Visitor Program
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1372; 8 U.S.C. 1762; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1356; 31 U.S.C 901-903; 31 U.S.C. 902; . . .
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: ICE will propose to adjust fees that the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) charges individuals and organizations.
In 2017,
[[Page 1728]]
SEVP conducted a comprehensive fee study and determined that current
fees do not recover the full costs of the services provided. ICE has
determined that adjusting fees is necessary to fully recover the
increased costs of SEVP operations, program requirements, and to
provide the necessary funding to sustain initiatives critical to
supporting national security. ICE will propose to adjust its fees for
individuals and organizations to establish a more equitable
distribution of costs and to establish a sustainable revenue level. The
SEVP fee schedule was last adjusted in a rule published on September
26, 2008.
Statement of Need: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)
conducted a comprehensive fee study in 2017 and determined that current
fees, most recently adjusted in 2008, do not recover the full costs of
the services provided. ICE has determined that adjusting fees is
necessary to fully recover the increased costs of SEVP operations,
program requirements, and to provide the necessary funding to implement
and sustain initiatives critical to supporting national security. ICE
will propose to adjust its fees for individuals and organizations to
establish a more equitable distribution and sustainable level of costs
relevant to services.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is in the process of assessing
the costs, benefits, and transfers of this rule. In order to recover
the full cost of its budget for the services it provides, SEVP proposes
to increase the amounts of its fees for SEVP certified schools and for
those schools that will seek SEVP certification, for F and M
nonimmigrant students, and for J nonimmigrant exchange visitors. The
fee adjustment would allow to continue to maintain and improve SEVIS in
order to uphold the integrity of the U.S. immigration laws regarding
student and exchange visitors.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response
Unit, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Potomac Center North STOP 5600, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536-5600, Phone: 703 603-5600.
RIN: 1653-AA74
DHS--USICE
59. Apprehension, Processing, Care and Custody of Alien Minors
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1225 to
1227; 8 U.S.C. 1362
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the policies of
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) relating to the
detention, processing, and release of alien children; the case
eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the
constitutionality of the challenged INS regulations on their face and
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
In January 1997, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement
agreement, referred to as the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA). The
FSA was to terminate five years after the date of final court approval;
however, the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that
the FSA does not terminate until forty-five days after publication of
regulations implementing the agreement.
Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage of the
Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have
significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the
FSA. The proposed rule will codify the substantive terms of the FSA and
enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and
litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, ICE will
create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while
satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related
provisions of the TVPRA.
Statement of Need: In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the
policies of the former INS relating to the detention, processing, and
release of alien children; the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged INS
regulations on their face and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion. In January 1997, the parties reached a
comprehensive settlement agreement, referred to as the FSA. The FSA was
to terminate five years after the date of final court approval;
however, the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that
the FSA does not terminate until forty-five days after publication of
regulations implementing the agreement.
Since 1997, intervening legal changes including passage of the HSA
and TVPRA have significantly changed the applicability of certain
provisions of the FSA. The proposed rule will codify the substantive
terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of
the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule,
ICE will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family
units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also
implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is in the process of determining
the costs and benefits which would be incurred by regulated entities
and individuals, as well as the costs and benefits to ICE for ensuring
compliance with the requirements of this rule.
ICE expects to incur costs related to new or additional procedures
for immigration proceedings for alien minors. Benefits include
enhancing the process and protections for alien minors. This regulation
will also strengthen DHS efforts to combat human trafficking of minors.
Other benefits are enabling the U.S. Government to seek termination of
the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement, as well as bringing
clarity and certainty to the process of addressing alien minors.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Sara Shaw, Deputy Assistant Director, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-3994, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA75
[[Page 1729]]
DHS--USICE
60. Practical Training Reform
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: ICE will propose this rule to improve protections of U.S.
workers who may be negatively impacted by employment of nonimmigrant
students on F and M visas. The rule is a comprehensive reform of
practical training options intended to reduce fraud and abuse.
Statement of Need: ICE will prepare this rule to improve
protections of U.S. workers who may be negatively impacted by
employment of nonimmigrant students on F and M visas. The rule would
implement new requirements that would reduce fraud and abuse in the
practical training programs. The proposed provisions include increased
oversight of the schools and students participating in the program to
ensure compliance with requirements of the program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is in the process of assessing
the costs and benefits that would be incurred by regulated entities and
individuals, as well as the costs and benefits to the public at large.
ICE, SEVP certified schools, nonimmigrant students who participate in
practical training, and their employers for practical training would
incur costs for increased oversight requirements. This rule is intended
to decrease the incidence of immigrant employment fraud and improve the
integrity of nonimmigrant student employment opportunities.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response
Unit, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Potomac Center North STOP 5600, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536-5600, Phone: 703 603-5600.
RIN: 1653-AA76
DHS--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Final Rule Stage
61. Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for
Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207
CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.48(b).
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 29, 2014, Section 1109 of
the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, Public Law 113-2.
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) requires the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in
cooperation with representatives of State, tribal, and local emergency
management agencies, to review, update, and revise through rulemaking
the individual assistance factors FEMA uses to measure the severity,
magnitude, and impact of a disaster (not later than 1 year after
enactment).
Abstract: FEMA is issuing a final rule to revise its regulations to
comply with Section 1109 of SRIA. SRIA requires FEMA, in cooperation
with State, local, and Tribal emergency management agencies, to review,
update, and revise through rulemaking the Individual Assistance factors
FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster.
FEMA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter on
November 12, 2015.
Statement of Need: On January 29, 2013, SRIA was enacted into law
(Pub. L. 113-2). Section 1109 of SRIA requires FEMA, in cooperation
with State, local, and Tribal emergency management agencies, to review,
update, and revise through rulemaking the factors found at 44 CFR
206.48 that FEMA uses to determine whether to recommend provision of
Individual Assistance (IA) during a major disaster. These factors help
FEMA measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster, as well
as the capabilities of the affected jurisdictions.
FEMA is issuing this final rule to comply with SRIA and to provide
clarity on the IA factors that FEMA currently considers in support of
its recommendation to the President on whether a major disaster
declaration authorizing IA is warranted. The additional clarity may
reduce delays in the declaration process by decreasing the back and
forth between States and FEMA during the declaration process.
Summary of Legal Basis: FEMA has authority for this final rule
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act). 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Section 401 of
the Stafford Act lays out the procedures for a declaration for FEMA's
major disaster assistance programs when a catastrophe occurs in a
State. The specific changes in this final rule comply with section 1109
of SRIA, Public Law 113-2.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 2015 NPRM proposed to codify
current declaration considerations and introduced new factors that FEMA
would use when reviewing and recommending a major disaster declaration
request that includes IA. Codifying the factors that capture FEMA's
current declaration practice and considerations would not result in
additional costs. However, the new factors would have small burden
increases associated with obtaining the additional information. FEMA
does not anticipate the rule would impact the number of major disaster
declaration requests received that include IA or the amount of IA
assistance provided, and therefore there would be no impact to transfer
payments.
FEMA estimated the 10-year present value total cost of the proposed
rule would be $15,806 and $13,302 if discounted at 3 and 7 percent,
respectively. The annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $1,853
at 3 percent and $1,894 at 7 percent. (All amounts in the NPRM are
presented in 2013 dollars.) Benefits of the proposed rule include
clarifying FEMA's existing practices, reducing processing time for
requests due to clarifications, and providing States with notice of the
new information FEMA is proposing to consider as part of the IA
declarations process.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/12/15 80 FR 70116
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/11/16
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2014-0005.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 1730]]
Agency Contact: Mark Millican, Individual Assistance Division,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3100, Phone: 202 212-3221, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1660-AA83
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2018
Introduction
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 highlights the most
significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to
complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the federal agency that
serves as the nation's housing agency, committed to addressing the
housing needs of Americans, promoting economic and community
development, and enforcing the nation's fair housing laws, HUD plays a
significant role in the lives of families and in communities throughout
America. The Department's programs help to provide decent, safe, and
sanitary housing, and create suitable living environments for all
Americans. HUD also provides housing and other essential support to a
wide range of individuals and families with special needs, including
homeless individuals, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
HUD's regulatory plan for FY2018 reflects the leadership and vision
of Secretary Carson who has directed HUD, consistent with Executive
Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' to identify and eliminate or streamline regulation that are
wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. Executive Order 13771 directs
that agencies manage the costs associated with the governmental
imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations. Toward this end, Executive Order 13771 directs that for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination and requires that the cost of planned
regulations be prudently managed and controlled. Consistent with this
policy goal, the Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of
Executive Order 13777, entitled ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.'' The Executive Order 13777 supplements and reaffirms the
rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency
to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing
regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement,
modification, are outdated, unnecessary, or are ineffective, eliminate
or inhibit job creation, impose costs that exceed benefits, or derive
from or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or
significantly modified. HUD's Regulatory Reform Task Force has been
hard at work to provide recommendations on which regulations to repeal,
modify or keep to ensure those that remain effectively manage scarce
federal resources, adequately protect low-income families and
facilitate the development of affordable housing and provide the
provide the opportunity for families to become self-sufficient. As a
result, HUD's Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions lists two anticipated regulatory actions and eleven
deregulatory actions.
The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY2018 reflect
HUD's efforts to fulfill its mission and improve performance, including
by removing regulations that HUD has determined are outdated,
unnecessary, or are ineffective.
Implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016
Regulatory Priority: Deregulation
The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA)
(Pub. L. 114-201, approved July 29, 2016) amended the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and other housing laws to modify
multiple HUD programs, along with the Department of Agriculture's
Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program. Significant amendments
included setting a maximum income level for continued occupancy in
public housing, expanding the availability of Family Unification
Program vouchers for children aging out of foster care, changes to the
housing quality standards for Section 8 Voucher units, multiple changes
to the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, modifying requirements for
mortgage insurance for condominiums under the Federal Housing
Administration, creating a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in
HUD, and changing the allocation formula for the Housing Opportunities
for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program.
On October 24, 2016, at 81 FR 73030, HUD issued a notice in the
Federal Register announcing which provisions of the statute were self-
implementing and which would require further action by HUD. This was
followed up by a notice for comment on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 85996)
seeking public input on the best way to determine the income limit for
public housing residents.
HUD published another notice in the Federal Register on January 18,
2017 (82 FR 5458), utilizing authority granted by HOTMA to implement
certain provisions by notice, but also soliciting public comment on
HUD's implementation methods. That notice implemented new statutory
provisions regarding certain inspection requirements for both housing
choice voucher (HCV) tenant-based and PBV assistance (found in Sec.
101(a)(1) of HOTMA), the definition of public housing agency (PHA)-
owned housing (Sec. 105 of HOTMA), and changes to the PBV program at
large (Sec. 106 of HOTMA) by providing the additional information
needed for PHAs and owners to use those provisions. The notice also
implemented and provided guidance on the statutory change to the HCV
housing assistance payment (HAP) calculation for families who own
manufactured housing and are renting the manufactured home space (Sec.
112 of HOTMA).
Many of the statutory provisions in HOTMA are intended to
streamline administrative processes and reduce burdens on PHAs and
private owners. The January 18, 2017, notice implemented provisions
that reduced the number and frequency of inspections required before
allowing a family to move into a unit, limited the definition of PHA-
owned housing and therefore reduced requirements for getting third
parties involved in inspections, and reduced some of the requirements
for submission to HUD for PHAs looking to project-base voucher
assistance in projects currently under contract or previously assisted
under a different form of assistance. Other provisions in HOTMA not yet
implemented increase a PHA's ability to access databases to ease the
burden of verifying income and also allow a family to self-certify as
to the value of their assets when their assets are valued at less than
$50,000.
HUD further intends to implement the new HOTMA provisions in such a
way as to align policies and procedures across program offices, to
include multifamily programs and programs that are administered by the
Office of Community Planning and Development. Alignment will reduce
disparities between the programs and better enable PHAs and owners to
use multiple forms
[[Page 1731]]
of assistance to best serve their communities.
HUD intends to complete this rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2018.
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
pursued in FY 2018. HUD expects that the neither the total economic
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
HUD Office: Offices of the Assistant Secretary for Public and
Indian Housing, Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule.
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a; 42 U.S.C. 1437f; 42 U.S.C.
3535(d); Pub. L. 114-201, 130 Stat. 782
CFR Citation: 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 574, 576, 583, 850, 880, 882,
884, 886, 891, 960,982, 983.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this rule, HUD proposes to codify the changes the
Housing Opportunity Act of 2016 (HOTMA) made to the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 that affect the Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA),
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Public Housing programs. The areas
most impacted by HOTMA include unit inspections in the HCV program,
project-based voucher assistance in the HCV program; income and rent
calculations for Public Housing, HCV, and multifamily housing programs,
and operating fund and capital fund flexibility in public housing.
Many of the statutory provisions in HOTMA are intended to
streamline administrative processes and reduce burdens on PHAs and
private owners. The January 18, 2017, notice implemented provisions
that reduced the number and frequency of inspections required before
allowing a family to move into a unit, limited the definition of PHA-
owned housing and therefore reduced requirements for getting third
parties involved in inspections, and reduced some of the requirements
for submission to HUD for PHAs looking to project-base voucher
assistance in projects currently under contract or previously assisted
under a different form of assistance. Other provisions in HOTMA not yet
implemented increase a PHA's ability to access databases to ease the
burden of verifying income and also allow a family to self-certify as
to the value of their assets when their assets are valued at less than
$50,000, which reduces the work required to determine the family's
annual income.
HUD CPD programs that have mimicked provisions in the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937 that were changed by HOTMA will also be affected. Alignment
will reduce disparities between the programs and better enable PHAs and
owners to use multiple forms of assistance to best serve their
communities.
Statement of Need
HOTMA provided HUD the authority to implement some statutory
changes by notice, but not all of the changes included that authority.
For those changes that were implemented by notice, HUD must make
conforming changes to the regulations.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits
Many of the changes included additional flexibilities for public
housing agencies (PHAs) and private owners, such as allowing for
alternative inspection methods to reduce duplicative inspections,
reducing paperwork requirements for project-basing vouchers in PHA-
owned properties, and allowing for longer-term housing assistance
payments contracts. The rule will also provide for more timely reviews
of significant changes in family income to ensure the effective
provision of assistance.
Compliance costs are expected to be minimal and one-time as PHAs
and owners shift their practices to meet the new requirements.
Risks: Reduced oversight of unit quality could increase the amount
of poor housing quality, but the increased flexibilities will allow
HUD, PHAs, and private owners to better direct resources to entities
that pose higher risks, improving the overall quality and effectiveness
of the programs.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register Notice............. 10/24/ 81 FR 73030
2016
Federal Register Notice............. 01/18/ 82 FR 5458
2017
Next Action......................... 06/00/
2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Danielle Bastarache, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451
Seventh Street SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-
5264.
RIN: 2577-AD03
HUD--OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH)
Final Rule Stage
62. Project Approval for Single Family Condominium (FR-5715)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707, 1709, 1710; 12 U.S.C. 1715b; 12
U.S.C. 1715y; 12 U.S.C. 1715z-16; 12 U.S.C. 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 203.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this rule, HUD will amend its policies and
procedures for projects to be approved as condominiums in which
individual units would be eligible for mortgage insurance. Insurance of
condominiums in approved projects was first authorized by the Housing
and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008. HERA moved the insurance of a
single unit condominium unit in a project without a blanket mortgage
from Section 234 of the National Housing Act. There are no existing
regulations under section 203. While HERA permitted the program to be
operated via guidance pending the issuance of regulations, more
recently, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016,
Public Law 114-201 (HOTMA) contains specific provisions regarding
condominiums under section 203. Relevant to this rule, HOTMA requires:
changes in requirements for project recertification; requests for
exceptions to the commercial space percentage requirement to be made
either through the HUD review process or through the lender review and
approval process; and for HUD to issue guidance, by rule, notice, or
mortgagee letter, regarding the percentage of units that must be owner-
occupied, including as a secondary residence. The rule also includes a
savings provision preserving section 234 insurance where the project
has a blanket mortgage.
Statement of Need: The Housing Opportunities through Modernization
Act of 2016 requires HUD to issue regulations on the commercial space
requirements for condominium projects; these regulations would be
codified in HUD's Code of Federal Regulations
[[Page 1732]]
(CFR) volume. Having one portion of the basic program rules codified in
the CFR and others not codified would be confusing and unfriendly to
the public. Additionally, the current program rules are overly rigid.
The rule will add needed flexibility and logically codify the basic
rules of the program, similar to HUD's other single-family programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis (in addition to HUD's
general rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)) is the definition
of mortgage in section 201 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1707), which
definition also applies to section 203 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1709). The
definition was revised by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) to include a mortgages on a
one-family unit in a multifamily project, and an undivided interest in
the common areas and facilities which serve the project (this is the
arrangement that characterizes the large majority of condo projects).
More recently, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (Pub.
L. 114-201, approved July 29, 2016), requires HUD to: Streamline the
condominium recertification process; issue regulations to amend the
limitations on commercial space to allow such requests to be processed
under either HUD or lender review and to consider factors relating to
the economy for the locality in which such project is located or
specific to project, including the total number of family units in the
project. HUD will be addressing these issues through the regulation.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule will produce cost savings
of $1 million per year by reducing the paperwork required for
recertification of an approved project. There are some costs associated
with qualifying to participate in the Direct Endorsement Lender Review
and Approval Process (DELRAP). However, HUD anticipates that many
provisions of the rule, such as single-unit approvals, flexible
standards, and a longer interval for condominium approvals would reduce
or eliminate the compliance costs of the rule.
Risks: The DELRAP process (which gives underwriting responsibility
to qualified lenders) and single unit approvals (which allow HUD to
insure mortgages in unapproved condominium projects) could increase the
risk of defaults. However, the rule would add safeguards to fully
mitigate these risks. The participating DELRAP lenders would have to
meet qualification standards, and HUD would monitor their performance
on an ongoing basis, and would have authority to take corrective
actions if a lender's performance is deficient. In addition, single
unit approvals would require that HUD not insure mortgages in an
unapproved project if the percentage of such mortgages exceeds an
amount determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for the
protection of the insurance fund.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/28/16 81 FR 66565
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/28/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=FR-5715&fp=true&ns=true.
Agency Contact: Elissa Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family
Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Housing, 451 Seventh Street, Washington, DC
20410, Phone: 202 708-2121.
RIN: 2502-AJ30
HUD--OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING (PIH)
Proposed Rule Stage
63. Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (FR-
6057)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-201; 130 Stat. 782
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5; 24 CFR 92; 24 CFR 574; 24 CFR 576; 24 CFR
583; 24 CFR 850; 24 CFR 880; 24 CFR 882; 24 CFR 884; 24 CFR 886; 24 CFR
891; 24 CFR 960; 24 CFR 982; 24 CFR 983.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this rule, HUD proposes to codify the changes the
Housing Opportunity Act of 2016 (HOTMA) made to the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 that affect the Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA),
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Public Housing programs. The areas
most impacted by HOTMA include unit inspections in the HCV program,
project-based voucher assistance in the HCV program; income and rent
calculations for Public Housing, HCV, and multifamily housing programs,
and operating fund and capital fund flexibility in public housing. HUD
CPD programs that have mimicked provisions in the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 that were changed by HOTMA will also be affected.
Statement of Need: HOTMA provided HUD the authority to implement
some statutory changes by notice, but not all of the changes included
that authority. For those changes that were implemented by notice, HUD
must make conforming changes to the regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 1437a; 42 U.S.C. 1437f; 42 U.S.C.
3535(d).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Many of the changes included
additional flexibilities for public housing agencies (PHAs) and private
owners, such as allowing for alternative inspection methods to reduce
duplicative inspections, reducing paperwork requirements for project-
basing vouchers in PHA-owned properties, and allowing for longer-term
housing assistance payments contracts. The rule will also provide for
more timely reviews of significant changes in family income to ensure
the effective provision of assistance. Compliance costs are expected to
be minimal and one-time as PHAs and owners shift their practices to
meet the new requirements.
Risks: Reduced oversight of unit quality could increase the amount
of poor housing quality, but the increased flexibilities will allow
HUD, PHAs, and private owners to better direct resources to entities
that pose higher risks, improving the overall quality and effectiveness
of the programs.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: Danielle Bastarache, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Policy & Legislative Initiatives, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street
SW, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-5264.
RIN: 2577-AD03
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
[[Page 1733]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REGULATORY PLAN
Introduction
The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) serves the American
people by managing one in every five acres of land in the United
States, as well as on the Outer Continental Shelf. Interior manages
these resources under a legal framework that includes regulations that
ultimately affect many American's lives and livelihoods. Interior's
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects over $10 billion
dollars annually from onshore and offshore energy production, one of
the Federal Government's largest sources of non-tax revenue.
Interior manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands,
including more than 400 park units, more than 500 wildlife refuges, and
more than a billion submerged offshore acres. Hundreds of millions of
people visit Interior-managed lands each year for camping, hiking,
hunting, and other outdoor recreation, which supports local communities
and their economies. Interior provides access on public lands for
energy development, which creates jobs and stimulates the U.S. economy.
Interior manages water projects that are a lifeline and economic engine
for many communities in the West; and manages forests and fights
wildfires.
Regulatory Reform
President Trump has made it a priority of his administration to
reform regulatory requirements that negatively impact our economy while
maintaining environmental standards. Since day one, Secretary Zinke has
been committed to regulatory reform. Interior is playing a key role in
regulatory reform and, pursuant to Executive Order 13777, has
established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to make Interior's
regulations work better for the American people. Interior continues to
encourage and seek public input on these regulatory reform efforts. See
(82 FR 28429, June 22, 2017) and https://www.doi.gov/regulatory-reform.
Interior is committed to a conservation ethic that also recognizes that
unnecessary regulations create harmful economic consequences on the
U.S. economy. Therefore, Interior expects to reduce regulatory burdens,
promote effective and efficient regulations, and respect property
rights as it implements its regulatory agenda for fiscal year 2018.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Interior's regulatory and deregulatory priorities focus on:
Promoting American Energy Independence
Increasing outdoor recreation opportunities for all
Americans
Enhancing conservation stewardship
Improving management of species and their habitats
Upholding trust responsibilities to the federally
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and addressing the
challenges of economic development.
Promoting American Energy Independence
In Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), President Trump announced it was in
the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our
Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding
regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production,
constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. The Executive
Order directed the executive departments and agencies to immediately
review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or
use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately
suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of
domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the
public interest or otherwise comply with the law. Interior's review and
actions are included in its Final Report on Actions that Potentially
Burden Domestic Energy (Final Energy Report). This report is available
on the internet at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/interior_energy_actions_report_final.pdf.
Among the actions that Interior identified and explained more fully
in the Final Energy Report are the following:
BLM published a proposed rule on July 25, 2017 (82 FR
24464), to rescind the final rule entitled ``Oil and Gas; Hydraulic
Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands,'' 80 FR 16128 (March 26, 2015).
BLM will review and revise the final rule entitled ``Waste
Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource
Conservation,'' 81 FR 83008 (November 18, 2016).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review the final
rule entitled ``Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,'' 81 FR
79948 (November 14, 2016); and
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and/or
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will review
[cir] The proposed rule ``Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting,
and Compliance'' published on April 5, 2016. See 81 FR 19717;
[cir] The final rule ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the
Outer Continental Shelf--Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control,''
published on April 29, 2016. See 81 FR 25887, and
[cir] The final rule ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the
Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,'' published on July 15, 2016. See 81 FR
46478.
Increasing Outdoor Recreation for All Americans, Enhancing Conservation
Stewardship, and Improving Management of Species and Their Habitat
On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order (S.O.)
3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation, which
established a goal to enhance conservation stewardship, increase
outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and
their habitat. In S.O. No. 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational
Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with
States, Tribes, and Territories (September 15, 2017), Interior
announced continued efforts to enhance conservation stewardship;
increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including
opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the management of game
species and their habitats for this generation and beyond.
To help meet these goals, S.O. 3356 directs, among other actions,
Interior bureaus and offices to:
Work cooperatively with state, tribal, and territorial
wildlife agencies to ensure that hunting and fishing regulations for
Department lands and waters complement the regulations on the
surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable;
in close coordination and cooperation with the appropriate
state, tribal, or territorial wildlife agency, begin the necessary
process to modify regulations in order to advance shared wildlife
conservation goals/objectives that align predator management programs,
seasons, and methods of take permitted on all Department-managed lands
and waters with corresponding programs, seasons, and methods
established by state, tribal, and territorial wildlife management
agencies to the extent legally practicable; and
[[Page 1734]]
create a plan to update all existing regulations to be
consistent with the Order.
Upholding Trust Responsibilities to the Federally Recognized American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Addressing the Challenges of
Economic Development
BIA is committed to identifying opportunities to promote economic
growth and the welfare of the people BIA serves by removing barriers to
the development of energy and other resources in Indian country.
Aggregate Deregulatory and Significant Regulatory Actions
Interior has made substantial progress reducing its regulatory
burdens upon the American public. After a thorough review of existing
regulations planned for publication, Interior removed 154 regulatory
actions from its Spring 2017 Agenda of Regulatory Actions. This reduced
its previous inventory of 321 by almost half. In fiscal year 2018,
Interior expects to finalize 28 deregulatory actions, resulting in more
than a billion net present dollars (present value) of deregulatory cost
savings. Interior does not currently expect to publish any significant
regulatory actions during the next year that are subject to E.O. 13771.
Throughout this document, the terms ``deregulatory action'' and
``significant regulatory action'' refer to actions that are subject to
E.O. 13771.
Bureaus and Offices Within the Department of the Interior
The following sections give an overview of some of the major
deregulatory and regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) enhances the quality of life,
promotes economic opportunity, and protects and improves the trust
assets of approximately 1.9 million American Indians, Indian tribes,
and Alaska Natives. BIA also provides quality education opportunities
to students in Indian schools. BIA maintains a government-to-government
relationship with the 567 federally recognized Indian tribes. The
Bureau also administers and manages 55 million acres of surface land
and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in trust by the United
States for Indians and Indian tribes.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory plan focuses on priorities
that ease regulatory burdens on Tribes, American Indians and Alaska
Natives, and others subject to BIA regulations, in accordance with
Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda. BIA has identified one deregulatory action on the current
Agenda that would streamline the right-of-way process for governmental
entities seeking a waiver of the requirement to obtain a bond in
certain cases. BIA has one significant regulatory action on the Agenda
that would revise existing regulations governing off-reservation trust
acquisitions to establish new items that must be included in an
application and threshold criteria that must be met for off-reservation
acquisitions before National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance
will be required. The rule would also reinstate the 30-day delay for
taking land into trust following a decision by the Secretary or
Assistant Secretary. This rule is expected to have de minimis economic
impacts and therefore likely exempt from offset requirements under E.O.
13771.
Because many of its existing regulations require compliance with
the NEPA, BIA will examine whether it can streamline NEPA
implementation, in accordance with E.O. 13807, Establishing Discipline
and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process
for Infrastructure Projects, and S.O. 3355, Streamlining National
Environmental Policy Act Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order
13807.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million
acres of public land, primarily located in 12 Western states including
Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface
mineral estate throughout the nation, creating jobs throughout the
country and generating non-tax royalty revenue for the Federal
government. As stewards, BLM has a multiple-use mission to provide
opportunities for economic growth through energy development, ranching,
mining, and logging, as well as outdoor recreation activities such as
camping, hunting, and fishing, while also supporting conservation
efforts. Public lands provide valuable tangible goods and materials the
American people use every day to heat their homes, build their roads,
and feed their families. The BLM works hard to be a good neighbor in
the communities it serves, and is committed to keeping public
landscapes healthy and productive.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
BLM has identified the following four deregulatory actions for the
coming year with total estimated cost savings of at least $156 million:
Rescission of the 2015 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule (RIN
1004-AE51)
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and
Resource Conservation; Delay and Suspension of Implementation Dates for
Certain Requirements (RIN 1004-AE54)
Revision or Rescission of the 2016 Waste Prevention,
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation rule (RIN
1004-AE53)
Resource Management Planning (RIN 1004-AE39--CRA
nullification conforming rule)
BLM has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771
planned in FY 2018.
Rescission of the 2015 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule
In March 2015, the BLM finalized a rule that would impose
requirements on operators using hydraulic fracturing on Federal and
Indian oil and gas leases. However, before the rule became effective, a
U.S. Federal District Court granted a preliminary injunction and then
set aside the rule, preventing the BLM from implementing it. The rule
has never gone into effect. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,
however, vacated the district court's decision in September 2017. If
there are no further proceedings in the Tenth Circuit, the mandate will
issue to the district court on November 13, 2017. If that were to
happen, the BLM would need to decide how to phase in compliance with
the rule. The rescission of these requirements would not leave
hydraulic fracturing operations unregulated, as operators still need to
comply with other Federal regulations and requirements, state
regulations, and tribal regulations, where applicable.
This is a good example of a regulation that is a prime candidate
for regulatory reform because of the multiple regulations by
authorities at the Federal, State, and tribal levels. The BLM found
that all 32 states with Federal oil and gas operations leases currently
have laws or regulations to address hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore,
since the 2015 final rule, more companies are using state-level
resources to ensure compliance with other applicable Federal and state-
level regulations. This redundancy makes the BLM rule an unnecessary
regulatory burden, irrespective of whether BLM even has the authority
to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
[[Page 1735]]
Secretary of the Interior Ryan K. Zinke issued Secretarial Order
No. 3349 entitled, ``American Energy Independence'' on March 29, 2017,
which, among other things, directed the BLM to proceed expeditiously to
propose to rescind the 2015 final rule. Upon further review of the 2015
final rule, as directed by Executive Order 13783, and Secretarial Order
No. 3349, the BLM determined that the 2015 final rule unnecessarily
burdens industry with compliance costs and information requirements
that duplicate regulatory programs of many states and some tribes. As a
result, on July 25, 2017 BLM proposed to rescind, in its entirety, the
2015 final rule. Rescinding the hydraulic fracturing rule will reduce
regulatory burdens by enabling oil and gas operations to operate under
one set of regulations within each state or tribal lands, rather than
two.
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and
Resource Conservation; Delay and Suspension of Implementation Dates for
Certain Requirements
Executive Order 13783 required Interior to review the final rule
entitled, ``Oil and Gas, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to
Royalties, and Resource Conservation,'' 81 FR 83008 (Nov. 18, 2016),
also known as the ``Venting and Flaring'' rule. S.O. 3349 also ordered
the BLM to review the rule. During the review, the BLM found that parts
of the rule imposed unnecessary burdens on industry. It published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 5, 2017, seeking
comment on temporarily suspending or delaying certain requirements
until January 17, 2019.
A temporary suspension or delay, if implemented, would avoid
compliance costs on operators for requirements that may be rescinded or
significantly revised in the near future. For certain requirements in
the 2016 rule that have yet to be implemented, the proposed rule would
temporarily postpone the implementation dates. For certain requirements
in the 2016 rule that are currently in effect, the proposed rule would
temporarily suspend them. This would give the BLM sufficient time to
review the 2016 final rule and consider revising or rescinding its
requirements. This will also provide industry additional time to plan
for and engineer responsive infrastructure modifications that will
comply with the regulation. It will lower the cost of compliance and
spread the cost over more time.
Revision or Rescission of the 2016 Waste Prevention,
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation rule
During the review of the Venting and Flaring rule, the BLM
determined that the rule is inconsistent with the policy stated in E.O.
13783 that ``it is in the national interest to promote clean and safe
development of our nation's vast energy resources, while at the same
time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy
production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.''
Consistent with this finding, the BLM intends to issue a proposed rule
that would eliminate overlap with the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Clean Air Act authorities and clarify requirements related to the
beneficial use of gas on Federal and Indian lands.
Resource Management Planning
The BLM published the Planning 2.0 Rule on December 12, 2016 (81 FR
89580). The rule became effective on January 11, 2017. However,
President Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA), which was signed into law as Public Law
115-12 on March 27, 2017. Under the terms of the Congressional Review
Act, the rule is ``treated as though such rule had never taken
effect.'' 5 U.S.C. 801(f). The BLM is publishing a rule to remove
nullified language from the Code of Federal Regulations to conform the
Code of Federal Regulations to the CRA resolution. OMB views actions
under the CRA as deregulatory for purposes of E.O. 13771. Some
commenters expressed concern that the nullified rule would have moved
decisions to the BLM Director in Washington, DC and away from states
and local communities that are most affected by land use decisions.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BOEM is committed to the Administration proposition that ``A
brighter future depends on energy policies that stimulate our economy,
ensure our security, and protect our health.'' In accordance with
Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017, Promoting Energy independence
and Economic Growth, BOEM is committed to the safe and orderly
development of our offshore energy land and mineral resources, with the
goal of avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy
production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. BOEM
is committed to identifying regulatory and deregulatory opportunities
and policies that lower costs and stimulate development. BOEM continues
to strengthen U.S. energy security and energy independence. BOEM
creates jobs, benefits local communities, and strengthens the economy
by offering opportunities to develop the conventional and renewable
energy and mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
BOEM is carefully analyzing two Interior rules related to offshore
energy that are identified in E.O. 13795 (Implementing an America-First
Offshore Energy Strategy). To implement that Executive Order, Interior
issued S.O. 3350, America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, which
enhances opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development
on the OCS; establishes regulatory certainty for OCS activities; and
enhances conservation stewardship, thereby providing jobs, energy
security, and revenue for the American people. That order also provides
deadlines for review of the rules identified in the E.O. Specifically,
S.O. 3350 directs BOEM to:
Immediately cease all activities to promulgate the
``Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance'' proposed
rule, published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19717). As directed, BOEM also
provided a report explaining the effects of not issuing a new rule
addressing offshore air quality, and providing options for revising or
withdrawing the proposed rule. BOEM withdrew the proposed rule and is
now considering best options going forward.
Promptly review, in consultation with the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the final rule ``Oil and Gas and
Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,'' published
on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with the policy set
forth in section 2 of the Executive Order and provide a report
summarizing the review and providing recommendations on whether to
suspend, revise, or rescind the rule. In coordination with BSEE and
consultation with stakeholders, BOEM will decide whether it should
proceed with deregulatory options that could allow operators to
continue operating later into the drilling season, providing jobs,
strengthening the economy, and supporting the development of America's
energy reserves.
BOEM has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year
2018.
Streamlining Renewable Energy Regulations
Since renewable energy regulations were promulgated in 2009, BOEM
has made substantial progress moving forward with the planning and
[[Page 1736]]
implementation of seven lease sales, the issuance of twelve commercial
leases, with a thirteenth in progress, and the processing of a number
of significant project survey and site assessment plans. BOEM has
worked closely with industry and solicited public input throughout the
early stages of its program to help identify several regulatory
improvements that: (1) Simplify and clarify requirements; (2) reduce
the regulatory burden on industry by providing more flexibility in
developing proposals and acquiring needed authorizations; (3) defer
certain planning and development costs on industry; and (4) resolve
contradictions and administrative inconsistencies. Overall, the
proposed regulatory improvements are corrective, and will facilitate
the efficient business development of renewable energy resources on the
OCS.
Compliance With Executive, Secretary, and Statutory Mandates
BOEM will continue to be responsive to the various regulatory
reform initiatives, including identifying and acting upon any
regulations, orders, guidance, policies or any similar actions that
could potentially burden the development or utilization of domestically
produced energy sources.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) mission
is to promote offshore conservation, development and production of
offshore energy resources while ensuring that offshore operations are
safe and environmentally responsible. BSEE's priorities in fulfillment
of its mission are to: (1) Promote and regulate offshore energy
development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to
ensure safety and environmental responsibility; and (2) build and
sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within
and across BSEE's key functions in order to keep pace with offshore
industry technology improvements, innovate in economically sound
regulation and enforcement, and reduce risk through appropriate risk
assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
Consistent with the directions in Executive Orders (E.O.s) issued
in March 2017 (E.O. 13783--Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth) and in April 2017 (E.O. 13795--Implementing an America-First
Offshore Energy Strategy), as well as with the President's January 30,
2017 E.O. on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, BSEE
is reviewing existing regulations to determine whether they may
potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced
energy resources, constrain economic growth, or prevent job creation.
BSEE is well-positioned to help maintain the Nation's position as a
global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience for the
benefit of the American people, while ensuring that any such activity
is performed in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
BSEE has identified the following four deregulatory actions under
E.O. 13771 as high priorities:
Well Control and Blowout Prevention Systems Rule Revision
In April 2016, BSEE issued a final rule entitled ``Oil and Gas and
Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer
Systems and Well Control.'' BSEE will propose a rule to reduce
regulatory burdens and encourage job-creating development, while still
ensuring safe and environmentally sustainable offshore operations.
Among the changes it is considering are:
[cir] Revising the requirements for sufficient accumulator capacity
and remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) capability to both open and close
rams on subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs) (i.e., to only require
capability to close the rams);
[cir] Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift
boat approaches within 500 feet;
[cir] Extending the 14-day interval between pressure testing of BOP
systems to 21 Days in appropriate situations;
[cir] Clarifying that the requirement for weekly testing of two BOP
control stations means testing one station (not both stations) per
week;
[cir] Simplifying testing pressures for verification of ram
closure; and
[cir] Revising or deleting the requirement to submit test results
to BSEE District Managers within 72 hours.
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf
Rule
In July 2016, BSEE and BOEM jointly issued a final rule entitled
``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--
Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental
Shelf.'' BSEE is reviewing its provisions in the joint rule to identify
potential opportunities reduce regulatory burdens while still ensuring
safe and environmentally sustainable offshore operations. Some of the
revisions BSEE is considering are:
[cir] Eliminating the requirement for capture of water-based muds
and cuttings;
[cir] Eliminating the requirement for a cap and flow system and
containment dome that are capable of being located at the well site
within 7 days of loss of well control;
[cir] Eliminating the reference to the expected return of sea ice
from the requirements to be able to drill a relief well within 45 days
of loss of well control; and
[cir] Eliminating the reference to equivalent technology from the
mudline cellar requirement.
BOEM and BSEE are also exploring joint options that would allow
greater flexibility for operators to continue to drill later into the
Arctic drilling season. If they are successful in implementing this
strategy, exploration of the Nation's Arctic oil and gas reserves will
increase while providing appropriate safety and environmental
protection.
BOEM and BSEE will engage stakeholders before proposing rulemaking
and the list of potential areas for proposed reform may be adjusted
based on feedback received.
Production Safety Systems Rule
In September 2016, BSEE issued a final rule entitled ``Oil and Gas
and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Oil and Gas
Production Safety Systems.'' BSEE is reviewing the rule to identify
opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens while still ensuring safe
and environmentally sustainable offshore operations. If BSEE identifies
areas for deregulation, it plans to tier a proposed rule behind the
Well Control Rule and Arctic rule in terms of potential burden
reduction.
In addition to the rules previously identified, BSEE is reviewing
the remainder of its regulations to identify other requirements that
could be modified to increase efficiency, streamline processes, reduce
industry burden, and maximize energy resources while ensuring offshore
operations are performed in a safe and environmentally sustainable
manner.
BSEE has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771
planned for fiscal year 2018.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
For the benefit of all Americans, the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue (ONRR) collects, accounts for, and verifies natural resource
and energy revenues due to States, American Indians, and the U.S.
Treasury. This revenue goes to State governments, as
[[Page 1737]]
well as several Federal funds that support projects at the local and
national levels, including support for critical infrastructure projects
and to develop public outdoor recreation areas. ONRR disburses 100% of
revenue collected from resource extraction on American Indian lands
back to the Indian Tribes and individual Indian landowners.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
ONRR finalized the repeal of its Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and
Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform rule on September 6, 2017. ONRR
plans one deregulatory action for fiscal year 2018, the repeal of its
rule on service of official correspondence.
ONRR has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771
planned for fiscal year 2018.
ONRR also will seek ideas to reduce the Federal regulatory burden
through advice received from the reinstatement of key committees that
will assess and advise ONRR on royalty policies and regulatory actions
related to natural resource and energy revenues.
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.'' OSMRE seeks to develop and
maintain a regulatory program that provides a safe, cost-effective, and
environmentally sound supply of coal to help support the Nation's
economy and local communities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
Stream Protection.
The Stream Protection rule was nullified under the Congressional
Review Act. OSMRE will conform the Code of Federal Regulations to the
Congressional action and will consider options to protect resources in
a way that does not unnecessarily burden the American people. OSMRE
estimates that this action will result in deregulatory cost savings of
approximately $82 million. See 82 FR 54924 (November 17, 2017).
OSMRE is reviewing additional actions to reduce burdens on coal
development, including, for example, reviewing the state program
amendment process to reduce the time it takes to formally amend an
approved regulatory program.
OSMRE has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year
2018.
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;
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 acres of land and water
from the Caribbean to the remote Pacific in National Wildlife Refuge
System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their
habitats, and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational
activities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
During the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
FWS will take multiple regulatory actions under the ESA to prevent
the extinction of and facilitate recovery of both domestic and foreign
animal and plant species. Accordingly, FWS 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, in accordance with the National Listing
Workplan. The Workplan enables us to prioritize our workload based on
the needs of candidate and petitioned species, while providing greater
clarity and predictability about the timing of listing determinations
to state wildlife agencies, non-profit organizations, and other diverse
stakeholders and partners, with the goal of encouraging proactive
conservation so that federal protections are not needed in the first
place. The Workplan represents the conservation priorities of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) based on our review of scientific
information. In addition, FWS, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, will improve how the ESA is administered and reduce
unneeded burdens. FWS will review opportunities to create efficiencies
and streamline the consultation process and the listing and delisting
process.
[ballot] 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.
To become more efficient and timely, the FWS is reviewing public
input and considering whether additional regulatory changes would be
appropriate to reduce the burden on industry and allow applicants to
proceed more quickly through the bald and golden eagle permit process.
Regulations to administer the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS).
In carrying out its statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, FWS issues an
annual rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific
refuges.
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. FWS
continues to work closely with state fish and wildlife agencies on how
to use these funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen
its partnership with State conservation organizations, FWS is 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.
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), FWS will update its CITES
regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th and 17th
Conference of the
[[Page 1738]]
Parties to CITES. The revisions will help FWS more effectively promote
species conservation and help U.S. importers and exporters of wildlife
products understand how to conduct lawful international trade.
FWS has no significant regulatory actions that are subject to E.O.
13771 planned for fiscal year 2018.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves the natural and cultural
resources and values within 417 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
resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United
States and the world.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
The NPS intends to issue a number of deregulatory actions in this
regulatory period and no significant regulatory actions.
Deregulatory Actions
The NPS will undertake deregulatory actions under Executive Order
13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') that
will reduce regulatory costs. Several of these actions also comply with
section 6 of Executive Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'') because they will remove or modify outdated and
excessively complicated and burdensome regulations.
The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule that would revise
existing regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to streamline requirements for museums
and Federal agencies. The rule would describe the NAGPRA process in
accessible language with clear time parameters, eliminate ambiguity,
clarify terms, and improve efficiency.
The NPS will issue a final rule that removes an outdated
reference to a document establishing environmental criteria for power
transmissions lines that is no longer used by the NPS to evaluate
applications for rights of way.
The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule containing
technical and clarifying edits. This rule would remove obsolete
regulations establishing different criminal penalties for violating NPS
regulations in military parks and national historic sites. This rule
would also clarify existing regulations to comply with recent decisions
by the U.S. Supreme Court. This clarification would state that a motor
vehicle operator may not be required to submit a blood test to measure
blood alcohol and drug content without a search warrant.
The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule that would state
that the NPS will not prohibit nor require a permit for or prohibit an
individual from transporting a bow or crossbow that is not ready for
immediate use across National Park System Units if the possession and
transportation of the bow or crossbow is in compliance with state law.
Additionally, enabling regulations are considered deregulatory
under guidance to E.O. 13771. The NPS will undertake several enabling
regulatory actions in the coming year that will provide new
opportunities for the public to enjoy and experience certain areas
within the National Park System. These include regulations authorizing
(i) off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore (final rule)
and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (proposed rule); (ii)
bicycling at Rocky Mountain National Park (final rule) and Pea Ridge
National Military Park (proposed rule); and (iii) the launching of non-
motorized vessels from Colonial National Historic Park (proposed rule).
All of these actions will allow the public to use NPS-administered
lands and waters in a manner that protects the resources and values of
the National Park System.
Regulatory Review
Through S.O. 3349, American Energy Independence (Mar. 29, 2017),
the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its intention to review
all existing actions that potentially burden the development or
utilization of domestically produced energy resources and suspend,
revise, or rescind such agency actions as soon as practicable. In
accordance with this Secretarial Order, the NPS will review the final
rule entitled ``General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas
Rights,'' 81 FR 77972 (November 4, 2016).
The NPS intends to take a fresh look at a final rule on sport
hunting and trapping in Alaska that published in October 2015 (80 FR
65325). This final rule amended 36 CFR 13, Subparts A, B, and F, to
revise regulations for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves
in Alaska. The rule also updated the procedures for closing an area or
restricting an activity in National Park Service areas in Alaska;
updated subsistence regulations that are obsolete; prohibited the
obstruction of persons lawfully engaged in hunting or trapping; and
authorized the use of native species as bait for fishing. NPS will
consider public comments and may revise the rule. See 82 FR 52868
(November 15, 2017).
The NPS intends to finalize a regulation allowing the free-
distribution of message bearing items such as readable electronic
media; clothing and accessories; buttons; pins; and bumper stickers.
This will give visitors an additional channel of communication when
visiting NPS-administered areas.
Regulatory Actions
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.
Deregulatory and regulatory actions
The Bureau of Reclamation will publish no deregulatory or
significant regulatory actions in fiscal year 2018.
Its regulatory program focus in Fiscal Year 2018 is to publish a
proposed nonsignificant 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 would 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.
DOI--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
Final Rule Stage
64. Rescission of the 2015 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 396d; 25 U.S.C. 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189; 30
U.S.C.
[[Page 1739]]
306; 30 U.S.C. 359; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b); 43 U.S.C. 1733;
43 U.S.C. 1740
CFR Citation: 43 CFR 3160.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This Proposed Rule would rescind the Bureau of Land
Management's 2015 Final Rule, Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on
Federal and Indian Lands (2015 Final Rule). Consistent with the
President's January 30, 2017, Executive Order on Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs, the Department of the Interior has
been reviewing existing regulations to determine whether revisions or
rescissions are appropriate to streamline the regulatory process and
eliminate duplicative regulations. As part of this process, the
Department has determined that the 2015 Final Rule does not reflect
those policies and priorities, and therefore is proposing to rescind
the 2015 Final Rule.
Statement of Need: Upon further review of the BLM's 2015 hydraulic
fracturing final rule, as directed by Executive Order 13783, and
Secretarial Order No. 3349, the BLM believes that the 2015 final rule
unnecessarily burdens industry with compliance costs and information
requirements that are duplicative of regulatory programs of many states
and some tribes. As a result, we are proposing to rescind, in its
entirety, the 2015 final rule.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/25/17 82 FR 34464
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/25/17
Final Action........................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Catherine Cook, Acting Division Chief, Fluid
Minerals Division, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Room 2134 LM, 20 M Street SE, Washington, DC 20003, Phone:
202 912-7145, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1004-AE52
BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2017
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The solemn duty of the Department of Justice is to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States so that all Americans can
live in peace and security. As the chief law enforcement agency of the
United States government, the Department of Justice's most fundamental
mission is to protect people by enforcing the rule of law. To fulfill
this mission, the Department is devoting the resources necessary and
utilizing the legal authorities available to combat violent crime and
terrorism, prosecute drug offenses, and enforce immigration laws.
Because the Department of Justice is primarily a law enforcement agency
and not a regulatory agency, it carries out its principal
investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through
means other than the regulatory process.
This year, the Department of Justice has substantially revised and
improved its procedures for evaluating new regulatory actions and
analyzing the costs that would be imposed. Executive Order 13771 (E.O.
13771), titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017), requires an agency, unless
prohibited by law, to identify two existing regulations to be repealed
when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement,
section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 requires the new incremental costs
associated with new regulations, to the extent permitted by law, be
offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least
two prior regulations. Section 3(a) states that starting with fiscal
year 2018, ``the head of each agency shall identify, for each
regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations
described in section 2(c) of [E.O. 13771], and provide the agency's
best approximation of the totals costs or savings associated with each
new regulation or repealed regulation.''
The Department does not anticipate publishing any new significant
Regulatory actions during fiscal year 2018 that would impose additional
costs or burdens. Accordingly, none of the Department's anticipated
fiscal year 2018 rulemaking actions would be subject to the two-for-one
offset requirements of E.O. 13771. Instead, the Department has
identified five Deregulatory actions (RIN 1117-AB42; RIN 1117-AB44; RIN
1117-AB46; RIN 1121-AA85; and RIN 1125-AA25), along with one revision
to an information collection, expected to be finalized during fiscal
year 2018, The Department and its regulatory components also are
already reviewing other possible regulatory changes to reduce
regulatory burdens and to streamline existing regulations, though those
initiatives are not expected to be promulgated in final form during
fiscal year 2018.
In addition to the new cost analyses being conducted pursuant to
E.O. 13771, the Department is actively carrying out the provisions of
E.O. 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' 82 FR 12285
(Mar. 1, 2017). The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force, chaired
by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, is actively working to
evaluate existing Department regulatory actions and to make
recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification in
order to reduce unnecessary burdens. The Task Force published a public
notice in the Federal Register on June 28, 2017, to solicit comments on
this goal and received over 30 recommendations that are under
consideration.
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in
the areas of federal grant programs, criminal law enforcement,
immigration, and civil rights. 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.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
OJP provides innovative leadership to federal, state, local, and
tribal justice systems; by disseminating state-of-the-art knowledge and
practices; and providing financial assistance for the implementation of
crime fighting strategies. OJP, through the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits (PSOB) Program, supports public safety officers by providing
financial assistance to eligible officers who sustain qualifying line-
of-duty injuries, and to the eligible survivors of officers killed in
the line of duty. The program also provides educational assistance to
certain survivors of public safety officers.
In fiscal year 2018, OJP will promulgate a significant final rule
amending and updating the regulations implementing the Public Safety
Officers Benefits (PSOB) Program (RIN 1121-AA85). This rule will
finalize two proposed rules to update and improve the OJP regulations
implementing the PSOB Program, in order to incorporate several
statutory changes enacted in recent years, and improve the efficiency
of the PSOB Program claims process.
[[Page 1740]]
The final rule makes conforming changes required by the Dale Long
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 pertaining,
among other things, to members of a rescue squad or ambulance crew
engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency medical
services. That Act also amended provisions relating to cases involving
certain medical conditions and the payment offset scheme for the PSOB
Program relative to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund
Program. The final rule also makes changes in response to perceived
ambiguities and gaps in existing regulations, as well as opportunities
to simplify and improve the program's administration--for example,
making explicit the agency's authority to prescribe an online claim
filing system, creating a process to facilitate the interaction between
evidence gathering and claim processing, simplifying the process for
claimant representatives to seek fees for their services, and updating
various definitions. These changes are responsive to the public
comments on the proposed rules 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.
In addition to the PSOB final rule, OJP will continue to review its
existing regulations to streamline them, where possible. OJP is
drafting the final rule for the OJJDP Formula Grant Program, for which
OJP published a partial final rule in in early 2017. OJP anticipates
that the final OJJDP Formula Grant Program rule would finalize certain
substantive aspects of the proposed rule, and also streamline and
improve the existing regulation by providing or revising definitions
for clarity, and by deleting text that unnecessarily repeats statutory
provisions, has been rendered obsolete by statutory changes, or that
addresses matters already (or better) addressed in other places (e.g.,
other rules or the program solicitation).
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, among other objectives, (1) to curb illegal
traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and (2) to
assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in
reducing crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during
fiscal year 2018, to seek modifications to its regulations governing
commerce in firearms and explosives to fulfill these objectives.
Among other regulatory reviews and initiatives, ATF plans to update
its regulations requiring notification of stored explosive materials to
require annual reporting (RIN 1140-AA51). This regulatory action is
intended to increase safety for emergency first responders and the
public.
ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim
rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act (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 is a regulatory action that clarifies the
administrative hearing processes for explosives licenses and permits.
This rule promotes open government and disclosure of ATF's procedures
and practices for administrative actions involving explosive licensees
or permittees.
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, 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. 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 2018, in addition to
initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent imminent hazard to
public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to control or
reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and
initiatives, DEA plans to update its regulations to implement
provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (RIN
1117-AB42) relating to the dispensing of narcotic drugs for the purpose
of maintenance or detoxification treatment.
In fiscal year 2018, DEA anticipates issuing no Regulatory actions
that impose additional costs. Rather, DEA plans to publish four
Deregulatory actions (RIN 1117-AB42; RIN 1117-AB43; RIN 1117-AB44; and
RIN 1117-AB46). These deregulatory actions do not include non-
rulemaking items, such as agency guidance and information collections,
which do not appear in the Unified Agenda. Consistent with E.O. 13771
and E.O. 13777, DEA anticipates reviewing existing regulations to
identify those that are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. DEA will
solicit public comments during such reviews, as appropriate, to engage
with the affected DEA registrant community and members of the public.
Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
BOP issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its
mission of protecting 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, BOP will
continue its ongoing efforts to develop regulatory actions aimed at:
(1) Streamlining regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and
improving readability; (2) improving inmate disciplinary procedures and
sanctions, improving safety in facilities through the use of less-than-
lethal force instead of traditional weapons; and (3) providing
effective literacy programming which
[[Page 1741]]
serves both general and specialized inmate needs.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
EOIR's primary mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by
fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the
Nation's immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney
General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate
reviews, and administrative hearings. The immigration judges adjudicate
approximately 180,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens
should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted
some form of relief or protection from removal. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (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 conduct 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 increase efficiencies and productivity, while also
safeguarding due process. In particular, EOIR is planning to publish a
final regulation to significantly reduce the current backlog of
immigration cases, by amending the regulations governing the statutory
annual limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of
deportation decisions to allow immigration judges and the Board to
issue denials after the annual 4,000-grant statutory cap is reached,
instead of the current regulatory requirement to reserve all decisions
irrespective of the outcome (RIN 1125-AA25). EOIR is further working to
finalize a jurisdiction and venue rule that will provide clarification
regarding an immigration judge's authority to conduct proceedings, how
venue is determined, and what circuit court law applies (RIN 1125-
AA52). In particular, EOIR is developing mechanisms in this rule
intended to streamline certain venue changes to achieve cost savings to
the agency and increase due process to the parties. In addition, in
response to Executive Order 13563, 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). As part
of that review, EOIR also intends to revise a number of existing
regulations, where needed, in response to Executive Order 13768 to
ensure the faithful and efficient execution of the immigration laws of
the United States.
EOIR is working on long-term plans to revise a number of existing
regulations, as it moves forward with the next phases of its electronic
case access and filing system to provide for the option of electronic
submission of information, when practicable, as a substitute for paper.
In 2013, EOIR published a final rule, Registry for Attorneys and
Representatives (RIN 1125-AA39), establishing an electronic
registration process for attorneys and accredited representatives
practicing before immigration judges and the Board. That rule was the
initial step in a multi-year, multi-phased initiative to make the
transition to an electronic case access and filing system within EOIR.
This endeavor is intended to comply with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277 (``GPEA''), and the E-Government
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Dec. 17, 2002 (``E-Gov''), to achieve
the Department's vision for improved immigration adjudication
processing and to meet the public expectations for electronic
government. The GPEA provides that, when practicable, Federal agencies
will provide for the electronic submission of information. The E-Gov is
intended to enhance OMB's management and promotion of electronic
government services and processes utilizing a broad framework of
measures that require, amongst a number of initiatives, the use of
internet-based and emerging information technologies to enhance citizen
participating and access to Government information and services. EOIR
anticipates considerable cost savings from the further expansion of its
electronic filing systems including, but not limited to, the
elimination of costs for managing and storing paper records;
eliminating storage space; improving internal efficiencies and response
times both internally and to the public through workflow automation and
cutting labor expenses (time for printing, copying, filing, and
document research using unsearchable paper); and lowering equipment
expenses by reducing the need for printers and fax machines, and added
maintenance cost.
Civil Rights (CRT)
CRT issues regulations to enforce Federal laws relating to
discrimination in employment-related immigration practices, the
coordination of enforcement of non-discrimination in federally assisted
programs, and Federal laws relating to disability discrimination.
The Department is reviewing its regulatory priorities and
associated agenda pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of
Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. As the Department continues to review
its regulatory priorities, CRT does not plan to promulgate any new
regulations in the areas outlined above over the next 12 months. The
Department is withdrawing four CRT rulemakings that were previously
designated as Inactive: (1) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public
Accommodations (RIN 1190-AA61); (2) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and
Local Government (RIN 1190-AA65); (3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability by State and Local Governments and Public Accommodations:
Accessibility of Medical Equipment and Furniture (RIN 1190-AA66); and
(4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local
Government Services; Next Generation 9-1-1 (RIN 1190-AA62).
Pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders
13771 and 13777, CRT is undertaking an independent review of its
guidance documents to determine whether any of those documents may be
outdated, inconsistent, or duplicative. CRT is also reviewing comments
relevant to its work that were submitted in response to a Notice
published in the Federal Register by the Department's Regulatory Reform
Task Force on June 28, 2017.
In addition, CRT plans to initiate a retrospective review of its
existing regulations implementing titles II and III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, as part of the Department's
effort to implement Executive Orders 13777 and 13771, the Department
plans to issue a Notice titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability; Review of Existing Regulations Implementing the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Standards for Accessible
Design. This Notice will request public comment and information to help
the Department identify any portions of the existing title II and title
III ADA regulations and the ADA Standards for Accessible Design that,
for example, may be outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively
burdensome.
[[Page 1742]]
The Department expects to publish the Notice during Fiscal Year 2018.
DOJ--OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS (OJP)
Final Rule Stage
65. Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3796; 42 U.S.C. 3796c(a)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 32.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Programs
provide death and education benefits to survivors of fallen law
enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders, and
disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of
duty. This regulation will update the rules for this program regarding
death and injuries from 9/11 events, make program changes to improve
delivery of benefits, and implement certain provisions in section 1086
of Public Law 112-239. The separate PSOB proposed rule published on
August 22, 2016, (RIN: 1121-AA86) has been incorporated into this
regulation.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to update and improve the
OJP regulations implementing the PSOB Program, in order to incorporate
several statutory changes enacted in recent years, address some gaps in
the regulations, and improve the efficiency of the PSOB Program claims
process.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this rule is 34 U.S.C.
subtitle I, ch. 101, subch. XI; 34 U.S.C. 10221(a), 10225, 10226,
10251(a), 10261(a)(4) & (b), 10272, 10286, 10287; sec. 1601, title XI,
Public Law 90-351, 82 Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Public Law 94-430,
90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Public Law 107-37, 115 Stat. 219.
Alternatives: This rule addresses the needs identified above in the
Statement of Need. The Department solicited comments on the language
and approaches that it proposed, and will consider alternative
regulatory language where it was suggested by commenters. The final
rule will reflect the Department's consideration of all alternatives
suggested by commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's analysis indicates
that the final rule will not be economically significant, that is, the
rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities. The Department anticipates that the
rule will result in some additional transfer payments from approved
claims (three claims totaling approximately $1 million per year), but,
aside from these (which are discounted in the cost-benefit analysis),
the rule will reduce costs to the government and all stakeholders by
$100,000 to $200,000 per year. The Department has determined that the
benefits of the rule updating and improving the regulations,
incorporating several statutory changes, addressing gaps in the
regulations, and improving the efficiency of the PSOB Program claims
process outweigh the costs of the rule.
Risks: The PSOB Act requires the payment of benefits under the
circumstances set forth in the Act, as implemented by the PSOB
regulations. Failure to update and improve the regulations to
incorporate statutory changes, address known gaps, and improve claim
processing will impair the Department's implementation of the program
as required by the Act, and may cause confusion and impose unnecessary
costs on claimants and public agencies involved in substantiating
claims.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/15/16 81 FR 46019
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/13/16
Final Action........................ 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Hope Janke, PSOB Director, Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531,
Phone: 202 514-6278, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1121-AA85
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
2017 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Good and Safe Jobs
The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and
develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of
the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities
for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.
The Department is guided by the idea that employers must be held
accountable for their legal obligations to their employees, while
recognizing that the Department also has a duty to help employers
understand and comply with the many laws and regulations affecting
their workplaces.
The Secretary of Labor has made protecting America's employees a
top priority. Under his leadership, the Department is committed to
fully and fairly enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction. The vast
majority of employers work hard to keep their workplaces safe and to
comply with wage and pension laws. Acknowledging this, the Department
is working to provide compliance assistance, to give employers the
knowledge and tools they need to comply with their obligations in these
areas. Compliance with the law is, however, mandatory. Employers that
do not comply with the law will continue to see full enforcement.
In addition to providing for workforce protections, the regulatory
plan below also includes regulations designed to promote apprenticeship
programs, with the goal of providing a way to ensure that workers are
receiving the skills they need to get a job. Too many Americans see
that jobs are available, but these jobs require skills that they do not
have. By expanding apprenticeship programs we can help close this
skills gap and route workers directly into good jobs.
The Secretary of Labor's Regulatory Plan for Accomplishing These
Objectives
In general, the Department will work to assist employees and
employers to meet their needs in a helpful manner, with a minimum of
rulemaking.
The Department will roll back regulations that harm American
workers and families--but we will do so while respecting the principles
and institutions that make us who we are as Americans.
Where regulatory actions are necessary, they will be accomplished
in a thoughtful and careful manner. The Department seeks to achieve
needed employee protections while limiting the burdens regulations
place on employers.
Regulatory actions taken by the Department will provide American
employers with certainty about workforce rules. The Department's
regulatory plan will make employers' obligations under current law
clear, while respecting the rule of law. Where Congress has not spoken,
the Department will not intrude.
The proposals that follow are common-sense approaches in areas
needing regulatory attention, presenting a balanced plan for protecting
[[Page 1743]]
employees, aiding them in the acquisition of needed skills, and helping
the regulated community to do its part.
Section 1 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'', 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 2017)
recognizes that ``it is essential to manage costs associated with the
governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with
Federal Regulations.'' Consistent with the requirements of E.O. 13771,
the Department's Regulatory Agenda includes 23 deregulatory items. The
count of E.O. 13771 deregulatory regulations excludes non-rulemakings,
such as guidance or information collections, that will not appear in
the Agenda.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees a
wide range of standards that are designed to reduce occupational
deaths, injuries, and illnesses. OSHA is committed to the establishment
of clear, common-sense standards to help accomplish this. The OSHA
items discussed below are deregulatory in nature, in that they reduce
burden, while maintaining needed worker protections.
OSHA continues its work to protect workers from occupational
exposures to Beryllium. Following the publication of a revised
Beryllium standard in January 2017, OSHA received evidence that
exposure in the shipyards and construction is limited to a few
operations and has information suggesting that requiring the ancillary
provisions broadly may not improve worker protection and be redundant
with overlapping protections in other standards. Accordingly, OSHA is
seeking comment on, among other things, whether existing standards
covering abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in
shipyards, and welding in shipyards provide adequate protection for
workers engaged in these operations. The comment period on OSHA's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject ended on August
28, 2017. The agency will review the public comments and formulate its
plan for next steps.
OSHA intends to issue a proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove
provisions of the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries
and Illnesses final rule (81 FR 29624). OSHA reviewed the May 2016
final rule as part of its regulatory reform efforts and will propose
changes intended to reduce unnecessary burdens while maintaining worker
protections. The proposed rule will look at the electronic submission
of injury and illness reports by employers. The preamble to the May
2016 final rule pointed to publication of the collected data as a
method to improve workplace safety and health through the rule's
requirements. OSHA stated its intention not to publish personally
identifiable information (PII) included on Forms 300 and 301; OSHA Form
300A does not contain any PII. OSHA has now determined that it cannot
guarantee the non-release of personally identifiable information. If
OSHA were unable to publish the collected worker injury and illness
data because it cannot guarantee the non-release of personally
identifiable information, then the potential benefit of improved
workplace safety and health through publication of the collected data
would not be realized.
OSHA also continues work on its Standards Improvements Projects
(SIPs), with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. These are intended to
remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and
health standards. OSHA published three earlier final standards to
remove unnecessary provisions, thus reducing costs or paperwork burden
on affected employers.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers
federal job training and worker dislocation adjustment programs,
federal grants to states for public employment service programs, and
unemployment insurance benefits.
Consistent with Sec. 4 of the President's Executive Order on
Expanding Apprenticeships in America, ETA will be proposing regulations
to establish the framework for industry-recognized apprenticeship
programs, a new industry-led initiative to promote innovation and
opportunity in apprenticeship, and integrate this initiative with the
existing Registered Apprenticeship system.
Finally, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administers numerous laws
that establish the minimum standards for wages and working conditions
in the United States. WHD will propose an updated salary level for the
exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees for
overtime purposes. In developing the NPRM, the Department will be
informed by the comments received in response to its recently published
Request for Information (RFI). The comment period on that RFI ended on
September 25, 2017, and the agency is now in the process of reviewing
these comments and formulating its NPRM.
DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)
Proposed Rule Stage
66. Request for Information Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for
Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer
Employees
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department intends to issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine what the salary level for exemption of
executive, administrative and professional employees should be. In
developing the NPRM, the Department will be informed by the comments
received in response to the Request for Information.
Statement of Need: WHD is reviewing the regulations at 29 CFR 541,
which implement the exemption of bona fide executive, administrative,
and professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum
wage and overtime requirements. The Department's NPRM will propose an
updated salary level for exemption and seek the public's view on the
salary level and related issues.
Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by section
13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1).
Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering any
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be
invited to provide comments on any 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 07/26/17 82 FR 34616
RFI Comment Period End.............. 09/25/17
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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 S-
[[Page 1744]]
3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA20
DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)
Proposed Rule Stage
67. Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration,
Amendment of Regulations
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 29.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department is revising title 29 CFR part 29, Labor
Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Programs to establish
guidelines for third parties to certify high-quality, industry
recognized apprenticeship programs, and other conforming updates and
governance modifications as appropriate.
Statement of Need: Executive Order 13801 (82 FR 28229), issued by
the President on June 15, 2017, directed the Secretary of Labor (in
consultation with the Secretaries of Education and Commerce) to
consider proposing regulations under 29 U.S.C. 50 that would promote
the development of apprenticeship programs by third parties. These
third parties may include trade and industry groups, companies, non-
profit organizations, unions, joint labor-management organizations, and
other organizations. The Secretary has determined that the Department
will issue new apprenticeship regulations to address the directives of
the Executive Order.
Summary of Legal Basis: The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937
(also known as the Fitzgerald Act), 29 U.S.C. 50, gives the Secretary
broad power to promote, help create, and set standards for
apprenticeship programs. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary
to formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary
to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of
such standards by encouraging the inclusion thereof in contracts of
apprenticeship, to bring together employers and labor for the
formulation of programs of apprenticeship, to cooperate with State
agencies engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of
apprenticeship, and to cooperate with the Secretary of Education in
accordance with section 17 of Title 20.
Alternatives: ETA has no alternatives at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
estimate is an anticipated cost of $25 million for this regulatory
action. Details for costs and benefits will be prepared.
Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or
the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of
Apprenticeship, Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room C-5311,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2796, Fax: 202 693-3799, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1205-AB85
DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Proposed Rule Stage
68. Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: OSHA intends to issue a proposal to reconsider, revise,
or remove provisions of the Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses final rule, 81 FR 29624 (May 12, 2016). OSHA proposes to
amend its recordkeeping regulation to remove the requirement to
electronically submit to OSHA information form the OSHA Form 300 (Log
of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and
Illness Incident Report) for establishments with 250 or more employees
which are required to routinely keep injury and illness records. Under
the proposed rule, these establishments would be required to
electronically submit only information from the OSHA Form 300A (Summary
of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). In addition, OSHA seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of adding the Employer Identification
Number (EIN) to the data collection to increase the likelihood that the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would be able to match OSHA-collected
data to BLS Survey of Occupational Injury and Illness (SOII) data and
potentially reduce the burden on employers who are required to report
injury and illness data both to OSHA (for the electronic recordkeeping
requirement) and to BLS (for SOII).
Statement of Need: The preamble to the May 2016 final rule pointed
to publication of the collected data as a method to improve workplace
safety and health through the rule's requirements. OSHA stated its
intention not to publish personally identifiable information (PII)
included on Forms 300 and 301; OSHA Form 300A does not contain any PII.
OSHA has now determined that it cannot guarantee the non-release of
personally identifiable information. If OSHA were unable to publish the
collected worker injury and illness data because it cannot guarantee
the non-release of personally identifiable information, then the
potential benefit of improved workplace safety and health through
publication of the collected data would not be realized.
Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is issuing this proposed rule pursuant
to authority expressly granted by sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (the OSH Act or Act) (29 U.S.C. 657 and 673).
Alternatives: The alternative for the proposed changes contained in
the NPRM is to retain the existing regulatory language, i.e., retaining
the status quo. OSHA has concluded that the benefits of the proposed
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. OSHA will
request public comment on feasible alternatives to the Agency's
proposal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The removal of the case specific
requirement reduces costs. OSHA estimates that the rule will have net
economic cost savings of $6.5 million per year. The Agency believes
that the loss in annual benefits, while unquantified, are significantly
less than the annual cost savings, hence there are positive net
benefits to this proposed rule.
Risks: This rulemaking does not address new significant risks or
estimate benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall,
this rulemaking is reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because it
provides cost savings, or eliminates unnecessary requirements.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1745]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Amanda Edens, Director, Directorate of Technical
Support and Emergency Management, Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP
Building, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2300, Fax:
202 693-1644, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1218-AD17
DOL--OSHA
Final Rule Stage
69. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
proposes to revoke the ancillary provisions for the construction and
the shipyard sectors that OSHA adopted on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2470),
but retain the new lower permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2
[micro]g/m3 and the short term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0
[micro]g/m3 for each sector. OSHA will not enforce the
January 9, 2017, shipyard and construction standards without further
notice while this new rulemaking is underway. This proposal does not
affect the general industry beryllium standard published on January 9,
2017.
Statement of Need: After a review of the comments received and a
review of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA proposed
to revoke the ancillary provisions applicable to the construction and
shipyard sectors June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29182), but to retain the new
lower PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and the STEL of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for
those sectors. In the January 2017 final rule, OSHA reviewed the
exposure data for abrasive blasting in construction and shipyards and
welding in shipyards and determined that there is a significant risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer to workers in
construction and shipyards based on the exposure levels observed.
Because OSHA determined that there is significant risk of material
impairment of health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, the
Agency continues to believe that it is necessary to protect workers
exposed at this level. However, OSHA is now reconsidering the need for
ancillary provisions in the construction and shipyards sectors, and is
currently reviewing comments received in response to the proposal to
finalize the rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the NPRM, OSHA estimated that
this proposed rule would yield a total annualized cost savings of $11.0
million using a 3 percent discount rate across the shipyard and
construction sectors. In the NPRM, OSHA preliminarily concluded that
there are no benefits (due to reducing the number of cases of CBD) as a
result of revoking the ancillary provisions of the beryllium final
standards for Construction and Shipyards.
Risks: Not yet estimated.
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.......................... 01/09/17 82 FR 2470
Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date. 02/01/17 82 FR 8901
Final Rule; Proposed Further Delay 03/02/17 82 FR 12318
of Effective Date.
Final Rule; Further Delay of 03/21/17 82 FR 14439
Effective Date.
Final Rule; Further Delay of 05/20/17
Effective Date Effective.
NPRM (Construction and Shipyard).... 06/27/17 82 FR 29182
NPRM (Construction and Shipyard) 08/28/17
Comment Period End.
Analyze Comments.................... 01/00/18
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DOL--OSHA
70. Standards Improvement Project IV
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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 and
76 FR 33590), thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected
employers. This latest project identified revisions to existing
standards in OSHA's recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and
construction standards, with most of the revisions to its construction
standards. OSHA also proposed 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.
Statement of Need: The Agency has proposed a fourth rule that
identified unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork
requirements.
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).
Alternatives: The main alternative OSHA considered for all of the
proposed changes contained in the SIP-IV rulemaking was retaining the
existing
[[Page 1746]]
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 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. The cost savings from these
revisions and eliminations of several OSHA requirements may be used to
offset any costs incurred by employers from new rulemakings that are
necessary to update employee protections.
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 Extended........ 12/02/16 81 FR 86987
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 01/04/17
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N-3468,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2020, Fax: 202 693-1689, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1218-AC67
BILLING CODE 4510-HL-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Introduction: Department Overview
DOT has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations.
For example, DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier,
railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, transit, and pipeline
transportation areas. The Department also regulates aviation consumer
and economic issues, and provides financial assistance and writes the
necessary implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports,
mass transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor
transportation and vehicle safety. Finally, DOT has responsibility for
developing policies that implement a wide range of regulations that
govern programs such as acquisition and grants management, access for
people with disabilities, environmental protection, energy
conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health,
property asset management, seismic safety, security, and the use of
aircraft and vehicles. The Department carries out its responsibilities
through the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the following operating
administrations (OAs): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal
Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime Administration (MARAD); National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration; (PHMSA); and St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation (SLSDC).
The Department's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives
The Department's highest priority is safety. To achieve our safety
goals responsibly and in accordance with principles of good governance,
we embrace a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes transparency,
stakeholder engagement, and regulatory restraint. Our goal is to allow
the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily
includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and
benefits of engaging in--or deciding not to engage in--a particular
regulatory action. It is our policy to provide an opportunity for
public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above
all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations
should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested
stakeholder.
At DOT, transparency and stakeholder engagement take a
number of different forms. For example, we publish a monthly report on
our website that provides a summary and the status for all significant
rulemakings that DOT currently has pending or has issued recently
(https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings). This report provides the public with easy access to
information about the Department's regulatory activities that can be
used to locate other publicly-available information in the Department's
regulatory docket at www.regulations.gov, or in the Federal Register.
We also seek public input through direct engagement. For
example, we recently published a request asking the public to help us
identify obstacles to infrastructure projects, Transportation
Infrastructure: Notice of Review of Policy, Guidance, and Regulation,
82 FR 26734 (June 8, 2017). We also published another notice requesting
the public to help us identify rules that are good candidates for
repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification, or other deregulatory
action, 82 FR 45750 (October 2, 2017). Finally, DOT has a long history
of partnering with stakeholders to develop recommendations and
consensus standards through advisory committees. Some committees meet
regularly to provide advice, while others are convened on an ad hoc
basis to address specific needs. Each OA, as well as OST, has at least
one standing advisory committee.
The Department's regulatory philosophy also embraces the notion
that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize
consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes
in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These
processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are
periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised
[[Page 1747]]
to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were
originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-
justified.
For example, DOT regularly makes a conscientious effort to review
its rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979), Executive Order (E.O.)
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department follows a repeating 10-year
plan for the review of existing regulations. Information on the results
of these reviews is included in the Unified Agenda.
In addition, through three new Executive orders, President Trump
directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other
agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.
Under Section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law,
whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice
and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify
at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017,
President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a
Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations,
and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or
modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order
13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring
agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance
documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially
burden the development or use of domestically produced energy
resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and
nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department
formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders,
which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations,
and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified.
The RRTF continues to conduct monthly reviews across all OAs to
identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to
ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-
regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF
can be found online at: https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/regulatory-reform-task-force-report. The priorities identified below
reflect the RRTF's work to implement the Department's focus on reducing
burdens and improving the effectiveness of all regulations.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
Four fundamental principles--safety, innovation, enabling
investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory
burdens--are our top priorities. These priorities are grounded in our
national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety,
innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we
must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and
innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary
restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we
must remain focused on managing safety risks and be sure that we do not
regress from the successes already achieved. Accordingly, the
regulatory plan laid out below reflects a careful balance that
emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at
the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable,
and sustainable transportation system.
Safety. The success of our national transportation system requires
us to remain focused on safety as our highest priority. Our regulatory
plan reflects our commitment to safety through a balanced regulatory
approach. Our goals are to deliver safety more efficiently and at a
lower cost to the public by looking to market-driven solutions first.
Innovation. Every mode of transportation is affected by
transformative technology. Whether we are talking about automation,
unmanned vehicles, or other emerging technologies, we are looking
forward to new and promising frontiers that will change the way we move
on the ground, in water, through the air, and into space. Our
regulatory plan reflects the Administration's commitment to fostering
innovation by lifting barriers to entry and enabling innovative and
exciting new uses of transportation technology.
Enabling investment in Infrastructure. The safe and efficient
movement of goods and passengers requires us not just to maintain, but
to improve our national transportation infrastructure. But that cannot
happen without changes to the way we plan, fund, and approve projects.
Accordingly, our Regulatory Plan prioritizes regulatory action that
streamlines the approval process and facilitates more efficient
investment in infrastructure. To maintain global leadership and foster
economic growth, this must be one of our highest priorities.
Reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Finally, our Regulatory
Plan reflects our commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory
burdens. Our priority rules include some deregulatory actions that we
identified after a comprehensive review of all of the Department's
regulations. The Plan also reflects our policy of thoroughly
considering non-regulatory solutions before taking regulatory action.
When regulatory intervention is necessary, however, it is our policy to
rely data-driven and risk-based analysis to craft the most effective
and least burdensome solution to the problem.
This Regulatory Plan identifies the 15 pending rulemakings that
reflect the Department's commitment to safety, innovation,
infrastructure, and reducing burdens. For example:
FAA will focus on regulatory activity to enable, safely
and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
into the National Airspace System (NAS), and to enable expanded
commercial space activities.
NHTSA will focus on reducing regulatory barriers to
technology innovation, including the development of autonomous
vehicles, and improving regulations on fuel efficiency.
FRA will focus on providing industry members regulatory
relief through a rulemaking that allows for alternative compliance with
FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier
III passenger equipment.
FTA will focus on establishing Private Investment Project
Procedures to encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and
private investment in public transportation capital projects, and
continue to focus on its statutorily-mandated efforts to establish a
comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program to improve the
safety of public transportation systems.
PHMSA will focus on pipeline safety as well as the
movement of hazardous materials across multiple modes of
transportation.
At the same time, all OAs are prioritizing their regulatory and
deregulatory actions accordance with E.O.s 13771 and 13563, to make
sure they are providing the highest level of safety while eliminating
outmoded and ineffective regulations and streamlining other existing
regulations in an effort to promote economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation. Since each OA has its own area of
focus, we
[[Page 1748]]
summarize the regulatory priorities of each below.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
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 senior officials in
regulatory decision making. Through the Office of the General Counsel,
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 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda), Executive Order 13873 (Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth), DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting
rulemaking. In addition, OST has the lead role in matters 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. The Office of the
General Counsel is the lead office that works with the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) to get Administration approval to move forward with
significant rules.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to OMB's
intergovernmental review of other agencies' significant rulemaking
documents and to Administration and congressional proposals that
concern the regulatory process. The Office of the General Counsel 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.
In Fiscal Year 2018, OST will continue its efforts to help
coordinate the activities of several OAs that advance various
departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on
promoting safety, enabling innovation, investing in infrastructure, and
reducing regulatory burdens. OST will also continue to provide
significant support to the RRTF's efforts to implement the Department's
regulatory reform policies.
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA 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.
FAA has identified four major strategic initiatives where it will
focus its 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 NAS of the future by achieving prioritized NextGen benefits,
enabling the safe and efficient integration of new entrants (including
UAS, supersonic aircraft, and commercial space flights) and deliver
more efficient, streamlined air traffic management services; (3) Global
Leadership--Improve safety, air traffic efficiency, and environmental
sustainability across the globe through an integrated, data-driven
approach that shapes global standards, enhances collaboration and
harmonization, and better targets FAA resources and efforts; and (4)
Workforce of the Future--Prepare FAA's human capital for the future, by
identifying, recruiting, and training a workforce with the leadership,
technical, and functional skills to ensure the U.S. has the world's
safest and most productive aviation sector.
During Fiscal Year 2018, FAA's regulatory priorities will
be to enable transformative UAS and commercial space technologies by
publishing two notices of proposed rulemaking (Small Unmanned Aircraft
Over People, 2120-AK85 and Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods for Launch
Vehicle Upper Stages, 2120-AK81), addressing the previously published
Interim Final Rule on Registration and Marking Requirements for Small
Unmanned Aircraft (2120-AK82), and publishing an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking comment on UAS security-related issues
(Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, (2120-
AL26). The Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People is the
long-awaited next regulatory step towards integrating UAS into the NAS.
This rule would allow certain routine small UAS operations over people
without a waiver or exemption. The Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods
for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages proposal would update current
regulations to reduce the amount of orbital debris that could
potentially interfere with existing or future activities in orbit.
FAA's top deregulatory priorities will be to issue two
final rules. Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and System Lightning
Protection, (2120-AK24) would amend certain airworthiness regulations
regarding lightning protection of fuel tanks and systems, providing
cost savings to industry stakeholders. Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment
View (2120-AK91) would revise the testing requirements for pilot
compartment view to alleviate the cost of the flight test and reduce
administrative burdens on affected applicants.
Finally, FAA will focus on two rules responding to Airline
Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010
requirements to address airline safety and pilot training improvements.
The first would implement a statutory mandate to establishment an
electronic pilot record database that air carriers would use for pre-
employment checks on pilots (Pilot Records Database, 2120-AK31). The
second rule would implement improvements to pilot training and
professional development programs to address mentoring, leadership, and
professional development of flight crewmembers (Professional
Development, (2120-AJ87).
More information about these rules can be found in the DOT
Unified Agenda.
Federal Highway Administration
FHWA carries out the Federal highway program in partnership with
State and local agencies to meet the Nation's transportation needs.
FHWA's mission is to improve continually the quality and performance of
our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, in Fiscal Year 2018, the FHWA will
continue with ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface
transportation programs. It will also work to implement legislation in
the most cost-effective way possible. Finally, it will pursue
regulatory reform in areas where
[[Page 1749]]
project development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative
requirements can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be
reduced or simplified, and the decision-making authority of our State
and local partners can be increased.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
The mission of 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 into the industry, maintaining high standards of safety
performance, and removing high-risk behavior. In addition to Agency-
directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations mandated by Congress,
through legislation such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Acts. FMCSA regulations establish minimum safety 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 efforts for FY 2018 will focus on efforts to
streamline the grants program, remove regulatory burdens, and ease the
transition into a transportation career for veterans. In addition,
FMCSA will continue to coordinate efforts on the development of
autonomous vehicle technologies and review existing regulations to
identify changes that might be needed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The mission of NHTSA is to save lives, prevent injuries,
and reduce economic costs due to roadway crashes. The statutory
responsibilities of 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 enable safety technologies and encourage the
development of non-regulatory approaches when feasible in meeting its
statutory mandates. NHTSA 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,
NHTSA considers alternatives consistent with principles in applicable
executive orders.
NHTSA's regulatory priorities for FY 2018 include continuing to
coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous vehicles and
reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation. NHTSA also plans
to issue several rulemakings and other actions that increase safety and
reduce economic burden, including some in response to statutory
mandates. Most prominently, NHTSA anticipates issuing a request for
comment on the barriers in existing regulation to deployment of
automated vehicles, particularly those that affect vehicles that may
have innovative designs. In addition, working with the Environmental
Protection Agency, NHTSA plans to propose fuel efficiency standards for
light vehicle model years (MYs) 2022 thru 2025 (Passenger Car and Light
Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards MYs 2022-2025, RIN 2127-
AL76). More information about these rules can be found in the DOT
Unified Agenda.
Federal Railroad Administration
FRA exercises regulatory authority over all areas of railroad
safety and, where feasible, incorporates flexible performance
standards. To foster an environment for collaborative rulemaking, FRA
established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The purpose
of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for regulatory action
on issues FRA brings to it. Even in situations where RSAC consensus is
not achieved, FRA benefits from receiving input from RSAC. In
situations where RSAC participation would not be useful (e.g., a
statutory mandate that leaves FRA with no discretion), FRA fulfils its
regulatory role without RSAC's input. The RSAC consultation process
results in regulations that are likely to be better understood, more
widely accepted, more cost-beneficial, and more correctly applied,
because of stakeholder participation.
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 FAST Act, as well as actions
under its general safety rulemaking authority, actions supporting a
high-performing passenger rail network, and actions addressing the safe
and effective movement of energy products.
FRA's regulatory priority for Fiscal Year 2018 will be to continue
its work on a final rule containing RSAC-supported actions that advance
high-performing passenger rail by providing alternative ways to comply
with passenger rail equipment standards (Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment, RIN 2130-
AC46). This rule is expected to ease regulatory burdens on certain
passenger rail operations which would allow the development of advanced
technology and increase safety benefits. More information about this
rule can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
Federal Transit Administration
FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public
transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail,
trolleys and ferries. FTA also oversees safety measures and helps
develop next-generation technology research. FTA's regulatory
activities implement the laws that apply to recipients' uses of Federal
funding and the terms and conditions of FTA grant awards.
In addition to the Department-wide goals described above, 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; and
Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant
management process.
In 2012, through MAP-21, Congress expanded FTA's safety regulatory
role by directing the Secretary to establish a comprehensive Public
Transportation Safety Program to improve the safety of all public
transportation systems that receive certain FTA funding. In December
2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which reauthorized the PTSP and
provided the Secretary with additional authority to ensure the safety
of rail transit systems. This new authority requires implementation
through the rulemaking process.
FTA's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 are the Private
Investment Project Procedures rulemaking (2132-AB27) and the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan final rule (2132-
[[Page 1750]]
AB23), which is one element of the Public Transportation Safety
Program. The Private Investment Project Procedures rulemaking would
establish new, experimental procedures to encourage greater use of
public-private partnerships and private investment in public
transportation capital projects. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA
must issue a rule requiring operators of public transportation systems
that receive financial assistance under Chapter 53 to develop and
certify Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. On February 5, 2016,
FTA published a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining the
requirements for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. FTA will be
looking to finalize this rule in Fiscal Year 2018. More information
about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
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 regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 will be to
continue to support the objectives and priorities described above in
addition to identifying new opportunities for deregulatory action.
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. Through the Associate
Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA
administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws.
In addition, both offices administer programs under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
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. PHMSA will concentrate on the
prevention of high-risk incidents identified through 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.
Further, PHMSA will continue to focus on streamlining 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,
international standards, and industry standards to identify
inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and barriers to regulatory
compliance.
In Fiscal Year 2018, OHMS will focus on two priority rules. The
first is designed to reduce risks related to the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA aims to finalize a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and
Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (2137-AF08), that
sought comment on expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil
spill response plans 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. The second rule is designed to reduce the risk of
transporting lithium batteries by air by addressing the unique
challenges they pose (Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions
for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft, 2137-AF20).
OPS will focus on two pipeline rules. The first will finalize a
proposal to change the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore
pipelines related to High Consequence Areas for integrity management
protections, repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid
gathering lines (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,
2137-AE66). PHMSA also plans to seek public comment through an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking that would provide regulatory relief to
certain pipeline operators that experience a reduction in allowable
operating pressure due to construction that has occurred in the area
(Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements, 2137-AF29).
DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
71. +Pilot Records Database (HR 5900)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 1155; 49 U.S.C. 40103;
49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 40119; 49 U.S.C. 40120; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49
U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 44111; 49 U.S.C. 44701 to 44705; 49 U.S.C.
44709 to 44713; 49 U.S.C. 44715 to 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722; 49 U.S.C.
45101 to 45105; 49 U.S.C. 46105; 49 U.S.C. 46306; 49 U.S.C. 46315; 49
U.S.C. 46316; 49 U.S.C. 46504; 49 U.S.C. 46507; 49 U.S.C. 47122; 49
U.S.C. 47508; 49 U.S.C. 47528 to 47531
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 118; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 135; 14
CFR 91.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would implement a Pilot Records Database
as required by Public Law 111-216 (Aug. 1, 2010). Section 203 amends
the Pilot Records Improvement Act by requiring the FAA to create a
pilot records database that contains various types of pilot records.
These records would be provided by the FAA, air carriers, and other
persons who employ pilots. The FAA must maintain these records until it
receives notice that a pilot is
[[Page 1751]]
deceased. Air carriers would use this database to perform a record
check on a pilot prior to making a hiring decision.
Statement of Need: This rule implements a Pilot Records Database as
required by Public Law 111-216. Section 203 of Public Law 111-216
amends the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) by requiring the FAA to
create a pilot records database that contains various types of pilot
records. These records would be provided by the FAA, air carriers, and
other persons who employ pilots. The FAA must maintain these records
until it receives notice that a pilot is deceased. Air carriers would
use this database to perform a record check on a pilot prior to making
a hiring decision.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rule is section
203 of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (2010).
Alternatives: The ARC proposed a phased implementation as an
alternative to PRD's statutory requirement to enter all historical
records dating from August 1, 2005. Instead, within sixty days after
the PRD launch date, air carriers and other persons would provide only
the names, certificate numbers, and dates of birth of employees dating
from the PRD launch date back to August 1, 2005. This information would
be used to identify a pilot applicant's previous employer(s). The
hiring air carrier would then make a paper PRIA request to those
previous employers to obtain any records from before the launch date of
PRD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits are to be
determined.
Risks: The risks are to be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Costs and benefits are not yet determined.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Bradley Palmer, Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 267-7739, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK31
DOT--FAA
72. +Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages
(Orbital Debris)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50903; 51 U.S.C. 50904; 51 U.S.C. 50905
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 401; 14 CFR 415; 14 CFR 417; 14 CFR 431; 14
CFR 437.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would update current orbital debris
mitigation regulations to more closely align with the U.S. Government
Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, and would update current
launch collision avoidance regulations to match U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM) practice.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking is necessary because collisions
between and with orbital debris (any artificial object left in orbit
about the earth which no longer serves a useful purpose) are a growing
concern. Historically-accepted practices have allowed these objects to
accumulate in Earth orbit, and because more space faring nations are
launching assets into space. If left unchecked, this accumulation can
clutter useful orbits and present a hazard to operations on-orbit.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rulemaking is the
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (as codified and amended at 51
U.S.C.--Commercial Space Transportation, chapter 509, Commercial Space
Launch Activities, 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (the Act)) which authorizes
the Department of Transportation and thus the FAA, through delegations,
to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry
activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried
out by U.S. citizens or within the United States (51 U.S.C. 50904). The
Act directs the FAA to exercise this responsibility consistent with
public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States (51 U.S.C. 50905).
The FAA is also responsible for encouraging, facilitating, and
promoting commercial space launches by the private sector (51 U.S.C.
50903).
Alternatives: One alternative to the proposed action is to leave
orbital debris as is, without any attempt to de-clutter the Earth
orbit. This is not acceptable because debris in space travels at
hypervelocities, and collision with a typical operational spacecraft of
debris of five milimeters or larger will likely cause damage that ends
the mission of the spacecraft. As of 2011, trackable objects (greater/
equal to 10 cm) are estimated to be over 22,000. Recent projections of
debris include 500,000 objects between one and 10 cm, and more than
tens of millions of objects smaller than one cm. The estimated rate of
debris accumulation will grow significantly over the next 100 years if
left unchecked, and the risk of future collisions between spacecraft
and orbital debris will also increase.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed action has present
value benefits greater than costs, when calculated over a 50-year
period. The total costs are estimated to be present-value $30 million.
The total benefits are estimated to be present value $31 million.
Risks: The risks to the proposed action are the potential technical
difficulties to implement the proposed methods for dealing with debris
by (1) natural decay, (2) controlled reentry, or (3) moving debris to a
storage orbit.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jennifer Bailey, Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 267-9784, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK81
DOT--FAA
73. +Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f); 49 U.S.C. 40101; 49 U.S.C.
40103(b); 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 333
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 107.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would address the performance-based
standards and means-of-compliance for operation of small unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) over people not directly participating in the
operation or not under a covered structure or inside a stationary
vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling
[[Page 1752]]
small unmanned aircraft. This rule would provide relief from certain
operational restrictions implemented in the Operation and Certification
of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule (RIN 2120-AJ60).
Statement of Need: This rulemaking would permit the operation of
small unmanned aircraft over people not directly participating in the
operation or not under a covered structure or inside a stationary
vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small
unmanned aircraft. Currently, such operations are prohibited. This rule
relieves restrictions and provides mitigations to protect people on the
ground.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 directs
the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether ``certain unmanned
aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system.''
If the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 333, that certain
unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace
system, then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe
operation of such aircraft system in the national airspace system.''
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1)
and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1) To ensure
the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to
govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting
and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on
the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the FAA with
prescribing regulations that the FAA finds necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security.
Alternatives: The FAA considered finalizing the micro UAS
provisions originally proposed in the sUAS Operation and Certification
notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA also formulated an AFS-80
Working Group that developed recommendations for the agency. The agency
was unable to adopt those recommendations in the sUAS Operation and
Certification final rule, however, because they were outside the scope
of what was proposed in the NPRM. Given the limitations of the micro
UAS proposal in the NPRM and the comments received, and with the
concurrence of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the
Office of Management and Budget, it was determined that the best course
of action was to withdraw the micro UAS provisions from the sUAS
Operation and Certification rule and place them in a new notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Until the FAA has defined micro UAS
(either in terms of properties, such as weight, or performance) we
cannot quantify costs or benefits of the rule. However, as in the case
of part 107 more generally, because this is an enabling provision that
opens up market opportunities we expect the benefits will outweigh the
costs since an entrepreneur will only voluntarily incur the costs in
the expectation of returns that exceed those costs. It is not possible
at this time to estimate benefits and costs resulting from level three
or greater injury caused by operations conducted under this rule.
Risks: If this rule is not implemented, operations over people not
directly participating in the operation or not under a covered
structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable
protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft will continue to be
prohibited.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Guido Hassig, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1 Airport Way, Rochester, NY 14624, Phone:
585-436-3880, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ60
RIN: 2120-AK85
DOT--FAA
Final Rule Stage
74. +Pilot Professional Development
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); Pub. L. 111-216, sec. 206
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 20, 2015, NPRM.
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.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the regulations for air
carrier training programs under part 121. The action is necessary to
ensure that air carriers establish or modify training programs to
address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight
crewmembers in part 121 operations. This rulemaking is required by the
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.
Statement of Need: On August 1, 2010, the President signed the
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216). Section 206 of Public Law 111-216 directed the
FAA to convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to develop
procedures for each part 121 air carrier pertaining to mentoring,
professional development, and leadership and command training for
pilots serving in part 121 operations and to issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) based on the ARC recommendations. This NPRM is
necessary to satisfy a requirement of section 206 of Public Law 111-
216.
Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f)
and 44701(a) and the specific authority found in section 206 of Public
Law 111-216, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), which directed the FAA to
convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) and conduct a rulemaking
proceeding based on this ARC's recommendations pertaining to mentoring,
professional development, and leadership and command training for
pilots serving in part 121 operations. Section 206 further required
that the FAA include in leadership and command training, instruction on
compliance with flightcrew member duties under 14 CFR 121.542.
Alternatives: The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and
Professional Development ARC presented recommendations to the FAA in
its report dated November 2, 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the timeframe 2015 to 2024
(millions of 2013 dollars), the total cost saving benefits is $72.017
($46.263 present
[[Page 1753]]
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 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
75. +Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and System Lightning Protection
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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 25.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 18, 2016, Final.
This rulemaking would establish design requirements for both normal
conditions and possible failures of fuel tank structure and systems
that could lead to fuel tank explosions, adding new maintenance
requirements related to lightning protection features, and imposing
specific requirements for airworthiness limitations in the instructions
for continued airworthiness.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend certain airworthiness
regulations for transport category airplanes regarding lightning
protection of fuel tanks and systems by establishing design
requirements for both normal conditions and possible failures of fuel
tank structure and systems that could lead to fuel tank explosions,
adding new maintenance requirements related to lightning protection
features, and imposing specific requirements for airworthiness
limitations in the instructions for continued airworthiness. It would
also create performance-based standards for prevention of catastrophic
fuel vapor ignition caused by lightning by regulating the risk due to
both ignition sources and fuel tank flammability. This change would
allow designers to take advantage of flammability reduction
technologies whose effectiveness was not foreseen when earlier
revisions to these rules were written. This change would also relieve
some of the administrative burdens created by the current regulations.
Statement of Need: The regulations as currently written to protect
fuel tanks from the risk of catastrophic explosion due to lightning
strikes is not always practical. The impracticality has led
manufacturers to petition for exemptions from this section, which the
FAA has granted with special conditions to achieve the intended level
of safety of the rule. This exemption process has created an
administrative burden on both industry and the FAA. This rulemaking
proposes to amend those to remove the requirement for the prevention of
lightning ignition sources and add a new, broader requirement for the
prevention of ignition due to lightning. This new proposed requirement
is intended to mitigate the risk of fuel tank ignition by considering
both ignition sources and fuel tank flammability limits offered by
existing regulations. The proposed amendments would re-state, in
performance-based rules, the intention to prevent catastrophic fuel
tank vapor ignition due to lightning, rather than focus solely on the
prevention of ignition sources.
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. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
subpart III, section 44701, ''General requirements.'' Under that
section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in
the interest of safety for the design and performance of aircraft,
regulations and minimum standards in the interest of aviation safety
for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, and regulations
for other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it prescribes safety standards for the
design of transport category airplanes and requirements necessary for
safety for the design, production, operation, and maintenance of those
airplanes, and for other practices, methods, and procedures related to
those airplanes.
Alternatives: The FAA's alternatives are to (1) leave the
requirement as it currently exists (however this would not address the
problem) or to (2) publish the rulemaking and reduce the number of
applicants consistently seeking exemptions to compliance with sec.
25.981 for fuel tank structural lightning.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is a retrospective
regulatory review rulemaking under Executive Order 13563. This rule
would be relieving for both government and industries with the
estimated net benefits. We assess regulatory benefits based on
resources saved for reducing regulatory burden on both industry and the
FAA. The total combined savings would be about $610 million or $451
million present value at a seven percent discount rate. The lower and
the higher estimates of the total combined regulatory savings would be
between $384 million and $836 million ($283 million and $618 million
present value at a 7 percent discount rate, respectively). The proposed
rule would maintain achieved safety levels related to fuel tank
structure and system lightning protection commensurate with the current
requirements.
Risks: If we don't publish the rule, there is a risk of a continued
paperwork burden for the public and the FAA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/18/14 79 FR 75496
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/18/15 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1754]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: SB: N, IC: N, SLT: N Anticipated costs and
benefits: The total combined savings would be about $610 million or
$451 million present value at a 7% discount rate. The lower and the
higher estimates of the total combined regulatory savings would be
between $384 million and $836 million ($283 million and $618 million
present value at a 7% discount rate, respectively).
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Massoud Sadeghi, Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98055,
Phone: 425 227-2117, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK24
DOT--FAA
76. +Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 49 U.S.C. 41703, 44101 to 44106,
44110-44113, and 44701
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 375; 14 CFR 45; 14 CFR 47; 14 CFR
48; 14 CFR 91.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule amends the web-based aircraft
registration process for the registration of small unmanned aircraft to
facilitate compliance with the statutory requirement that an aircraft
must be registered prior to operation. Accordingly, this final rule
removes the requirement for owners who operate their model aircraft
exclusively in compliance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft to
register their aircraft. Additionally, as this final rule requires
small unmanned aircraft owners to externally display the unique
identifier assigned by the FAA upon completion of the registration
process, they will no longer be permitted to enclose the unique
identifier in an aircraft compartment.
Statement of Need: This interim final rule (IFR) provides an
alternative process that small unmanned aircraft owners may use to
comply with the statutory requirements for aircraft operations. As
provided in the clarification of these statutory requirements and
request for further information issued October 19, 2015, 49 U.S.C.
44102 requires aircraft to be registered prior to operation. See 80 FR
63912 (October 22, 2015). Currently, the only registration and aircraft
identification process available to comply with the statutory aircraft
registration requirement for all aircraft owners, including small
unmanned aircraft, is the paper-based system set forth in 14 CFR parts
45 and 47. As the Secretary and the Administrator noted in the
clarification issued October 19, 2015 and further analyzed in the
regulatory evaluation accompanying this rulemaking, the Department and
the FAA have determined that this process is too onerous for small
unmanned aircraft owners and the FAA. Thus, after considering public
comments and the recommendations from the Unmanned Aircraft System
(UAS) Registration Task Force, the Department and the FAA have
developed an alternative process, provided by this IFR (14 CFR part 48)
for registration and marking available only to small unmanned aircraft
owners. Small unmanned aircraft owners may use this process to comply
with the statutory requirement to register their aircraft prior to
operating in the National Airspace System (NAS).
Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's 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 authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce
by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security. This rule is also promulgated pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 44101 to 44106 and 44110 to 44113 which require aircraft to be
registered as a condition of operation and establish the requirements
for registration and registration processes. Additionally, this
rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the Secretary's authority in 49
U.S.C. 41703 to permit the operation of foreign civil aircraft in the
United States.
Alternatives: Currently, the only registration and aircraft
identification process available to comply with the statutory aircraft
registration requirement for all aircraft owners, including small
unmanned aircraft, is the paper-based system set forth in 14 CFR parts
45 and 47. As the Secretary and the Administrator noted in the
clarification issued October 19, 2015, and further analyzed in the
regulatory evaluation accompanying this rulemaking, the Department and
the FAA have determined that this process is too onerous for small
unmanned aircraft owners and the FAA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In order to implement the new
streamlined, web-based system described in this interim final rule
(IFR), the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement, and maintain the
system. Small UAS owners will require time to register and mark their
aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total of government and
registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft registration and
marking under this new system is $56 million ($46 million present value
at seven percent) through 2020. In evaluating the impact of this
interim final rule, we compare the costs and benefits of the IFR to a
baseline consistent with existing practices: For modelers, the exercise
of discretion by FAA (not requiring registration) and continued broad
public outreach and educational campaign, and for non-modelers,
registration via part 47 in the paper-based system. Given the time to
register aircraft under the paper-based system and the projected number
of sUAS aircraft, the FAA estimates the cost to the government and non-
modelers would be about $383 million. The resulting cost savings to
society from this IFR equals the cost of this baseline policy ($383
million) minus the cost of this IFR ($56 million), or about $327
million ($259 million in present value at a seven percent discount
rate). These cost savings are the net quantified benefits of this IFR.
Risks: Many of the owners of these new sUAS may have no prior
aviation experience and have little or no understanding of the NAS, let
alone knowledge of the safe operating requirements and additional
authorizations required to conduct certain operations. Aircraft
registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the
agency to engage and educate these new users prior to operating their
unmanned aircraft and to hold them accountable for noncompliance with
safe operating requirements, thereby mitigating the risk associated
with the influx of operations. In light of the increasing reports and
incidents of unsafe incidents, rapid proliferation of both commercial
and model aircraft operators, and the resulting increased
[[Page 1755]]
risk, the Department has determined it is contrary to the public
interest to proceed with further notice and comment rulemaking
regarding aircraft registration for small unmanned aircraft. To
minimize risk to other users of the NAS and people and property on the
ground, it is critical that the Department be able to link the expected
number of new unmanned aircraft to their owners and educate these new
owners prior to commencing operations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/16/15 80 FR 78593
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 12/21/15 .......................
OMB approval of information 12/21/15 80 FR 79255
collection.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 01/15/16 .......................
End.
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sara Mikolop, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591, Phone: 202 267-7776, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK82
DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
77. +Rear Seat Belt Reminder System
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.208.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2014, Initiate. Final,
Statutory, October 1, 2015, Final Rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' to require automobile
manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front
passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles.
The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase seat belt usage
and thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would
otherwise have been unbelted. This rulemaking would respond in part to
a petition for rulemaking submitted by Public Citizen and Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, as well as to requirements in MAP-21.
Statement of Need: Based on recent FARS data, there was an annual
average of 1,695 rear-seat passenger vehicle occupants killed. Of these
fatalities, 1,151 rear-seat occupants (68 percent) were known to be
unrestrained. According to recent NASS-GES data, there was an annual
average of 46,927 rear-seat occupants injured, of which 15,290 (33
percent) were unrestrained. These unrestrained occupants who were
killed or injured represent the rear-seat occupant target population.
There was an annual average of 3,846 front outboard passenger seat
occupant fatalities in the FARS data. Of these fatalities, 1,799
occupants (46.8 percent) were unrestrained. In addition, according to
NASS-GES data, there was an annual average of 67,948 injured occupants
in front outboard seating positions in crashes. Of those front outboard
seat occupants injured, 20,369 (30 percent) were unrestrained. These
unrestrained occupants who were killed or injured in crashes represent
the front outboard passenger seat occupant target population.
Summary of Legal Basis: MAP-21 required the Secretary to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt
use warning system for designated seating positions in the rear seat.
It directed the Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the
Secretary determined that such an amendment did not meet the
requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111, to submit a report
to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a standard.
Alternatives: The Agency considered several alternatives, including
(1) requiring occupant detection for rear warning system; (2) requiring
a SBRS for the front center seat; (3) system hardening from inadvertent
and intentional defeat; and (4) awarding points through NCAP for rear
SBRSs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would result in
42--64 ELS and 33--50 ELS at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates,
respectively. The estimated total cost is $163.3 million.
Risks: The Agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Carla Rush, Safety Standards Engineer, Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4583, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL37
DOT--NHTSA
78. +Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards MYS 2022-2025
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 531; 49 CFR 533.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 1, 2020, Publish Final
Rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking would address Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks and for passenger cars for
model years 2022-2025. This rulemaking would respond to requirements of
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), title 1,
subtitle A, section 102, as it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902, which was signed
into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that corporate average
fuel economy standards be prescribed separately for passenger
automobiles and non-passenger automobiles to achieve a combined fleet
fuel economy of at least 35 mpg by model year 2020. For model years
2021 to 2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained by each
fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles shall be the maximum
feasible for each model year. The law requires the standards be set at
least 18 months prior to the start of the model year.
Statement of Need: Setting Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards
passenger cars, light truck and medium-duty passenger vehicles will
reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. energy
independence and energy
[[Page 1756]]
security, which has been a national objective since the first oil price
shocks in the 1970s. Transportation accounts for about 70 percent of
U.S. petroleum consumption, and light-duty vehicles account for about
60 percent of oil use in the U.S. transportation sector.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking would respond to
requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, section 102, as it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902,
which was signed into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that
corporate average fuel economy standards be prescribed separately for
passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles. For model years
2021 to 2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained by each
fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles shall be the maximum
feasible for each model year. The law requires the standards be set at
least 18 months prior to the start of the model year.
Alternatives: NHTSA will present regulatory alternatives in the
upcoming proposal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: NHTSA will present estimated costs
and benefits in the upcoming proposal.
Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 07/27/16 81 FR 49217
NPRM................................ 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: James Tamm, Fuel Economy Division Chief, Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-0515, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL76
DOT--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)
Final Rule Stage
79. +Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Amendments
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 238.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would update existing safety standards
for passenger rail equipment. Specifically, the rulemaking would add a
new tier of passenger equipment safety standards (Tier III) to
facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, interoperable, high-
speed passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 mph. The Tier III
standards require operations at speeds above 125 mph to be in an
exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings. This rule would also
establish crashworthiness and occupant protection performance
requirements as an alternative to those currently specified for Tier I
passenger trainsets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 mph
to 160 mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with
FRA's Tier II standards. The rule is expected to ease regulatory
burdens, allow the development of advanced technology, and increase
safety benefits.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking would update existing safety
standards for passenger rail equipment. Specifically, the rulemaking
would add a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards (Tier III)
to facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, interoperable,
high-speed passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 mph. The Tier III
standards require operations at speeds above 125 mph to be in an
exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings. This rule would also
establish crashworthiness and occupant protection performance
requirements as an alternative to those currently specified for Tier I
passenger trainsets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 mph
to 160 mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with
FRA's Tier II standards. The rule is expected to ease regulatory
burdens, allow the development of advanced technology, and increase
safety benefits.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302
and 20303, 20306, 20701 and 20702, 21301 and 21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C.
2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
Alternatives: The alternatives FRA considered in establishing the
proposed safety requirements for Tier III trainsets are the European
and Japanese industry standards. However, as neither of those standards
adequately address the safety concerns presented in the US rail
environment, FRA rejected adopting either of them as a regulatory
alternative suitable for interoperable equipment. FRA also considered
the alternative of standalone HSR systems operating on an exclusive
right-of-way (not physically connected to the general railroad system),
utilizing passenger equipment that complies with European or other
international standards but not necessarily with FRA's proposed
requirements. FRA rejected this alternative because a major tenet of
this rule is to safely facilitate the implementation of nationwide,
interoperable HSR service.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule would amend passenger
equipment safety regulations. It adds a new equipment tier (``Tier
III'') to facilitate the safe implementation of high-speed rail (up to
220 mph on dedicated rail lines) and establishes alternative
crashworthiness performance standards to qualify passenger rail
equipment for Tier I operations. This rule is deregulatory in nature.
At the proposed rule stage, FRA estimated the total cost of the
proposed rule to be between $4.59 and $4.62 billion, discounted to
between $3.13 and $3.16 billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and
between $1.94 and $1.96 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. The
annualized costs were estimated to be $64.6-65.1 million at a 7 percent
discount rate and $101.9-102.6 million at a 3 percent discount rate.
FRA estimated the total benefits to be between $8.66 and $16.75
billion, discounted to between $6.05 and $11.27 billion at a 3 percent
discount rate, and between $3.85 and $7.06 billion at a 7 percent
discount rate. The annualized benefits were estimated to be $121.8-
235.8 million at a 7 percent discount rate and $192-371.7 million at a
3 percent discount rate. The benefits are derived by calculating the
difference between the estimated equipment and infrastructure costs
without the rule and the estimated costs of pursuing the same projects
with the new rule in effect. The majority of the benefits are due to a
rule modification that provides Tier III trainsets the ability to
operate on shared track rather than build new, independent
infrastructure into urban areas. FRA is currently evaluating the core
assumptions that lead to such large benefits to ensure their accuracy.
Risks: The risk is regulatory uncertainty for potential Tier III
and Tier I alternative operations. Tier III operations could still be
conducted, but would require a series of waivers, which are not as
permanent as regulatory approval (and not as certain). Also, Tier I
alternative trainsets would still require waivers for operation (same
regulatory uncertainty as for Tier III).
Timetable:
[[Page 1757]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/06/16 81 FR 88006
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/06/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: State.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Elliott Gillooly, Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4000, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2130-AC46
DOT--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
Proposed Rule Stage
80. +Private Investment Project Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 20013(b)
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 650.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking proposes new, experimental procedures to
encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private
investment in public transportation capital projects (PIPP). The
proposed PIPP is aimed specifically at increased project management
flexibility, more innovation in funding, improved efficiency, timely
project implementation, and new revenue streams.
Statement of Need: The Federal Transit Administration is proposing
new, experimental procedures to encourage increased project management
flexibility, more innovation in project funding, improved efficiency,
timely project implementation and new revenue streams. A primary goal
is to address impediments to the greater use of public-private
partnerships (P3s) and private investment in public transportation
capital projects (Private Investment Project Procedures or PIPP).
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 1120141 (July 6,
2012), directed FTA to identify impediments in chapter 53 of title 49
of the U.S. Code, and any regulations or practices thereunder, and
private investment in public transportation capital projects, and to
develop and implement procedures on a project basis that address such
impediments in a manner similar to the Special Experimental Project
Number 15 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) commonly
referred to as ``SEP-15''. Section 20013(b)(5) of MAP-21 requires the
issuance of a rule to carry out the procedures and approaches developed
under section 20013(b)(1).
Alternatives: Promulgation of a regulation is required by statute
to implement these procedures.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA has examined the potential
economic impacts of this rulemaking and has determined that this
rulemaking is not economically significant because it will not result
in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This action is
considered deregulatory and comments are requested regarding the costs
savings of this action.
Risks: The proposals set forth in this rule will not adversely
affect the economy, interfere with actions taken or planned by other
agencies, or generally alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/31/17 82 FR 35500
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/29/17 .......................
Analyzing Comments.................. 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Chaya Koffman, Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4011, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2132-AB27
DOT--FTA
Final Rule Stage
81. +Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 673.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would establish requirements for States
or recipients to develop and implement individual agency safety plans.
The requirements of this rulemaking will be based on the principles and
concepts of Safety Management Systems (SMS). SMS is the formal, top-
down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risks and assuring
the effectiveness of a transit agency's safety risk controls. SMS
includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for managing
hazards and risks.
Statement of Need: The public transportation industry remains among
the safest surface transportation modes in terms of total reported
safety events, fatalities, and injuries. The National Safety Council
(NSC) reports that in most locations around the nation, passengers on
public transportation vehicles are 40 to 70 times less likely to
experience an accident than drivers and passengers in private
automobiles. Nonetheless, given the complexity of public transportation
service, the condition and performance of transit equipment and
facilities, turnover in the transit workforce, and the quality of
procedures, training, and supervision, the public transportation
industry remains vulnerable to catastrophic accidents. This Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a minimal set of requirements for
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that would carry out the
several explicit statutory mandates in the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to strengthen the safety of public
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under
chapter 53. This NPRM proposes requirements for the adoption of Safety
Management Systems (SMS) principles and methods; the development,
certification, and update of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans;
and the coordination of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
elements with other FTA programs and proposed rules, as specified in
MAP-21.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Alternatives: MAP-21 requires the Department to issue this
regulation. The NPRM will set forth FTA's proposals for implementing
the requirement for Public Transportation Safety Plans and solicit
comments on alternatives to both the proposals therein and to
regulation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA has determined that this is an
[[Page 1758]]
``economically significant'' rule under Executive Order 12866, since it
would cost approximately $111 million in the first year and $90 million
per year thereafter. The average annual cost over a 20-year horizon
period is $92 million. The benefits of the proposed rule are estimated
at $775 million per year over the 20-year horizon period.
Risks: The NPRM is merely a proposal for public comment, and would
not impose any binding obligations. However, given that the safety
program is new, there will likely be significant interest in any action
FTA takes to implement the requirements of the program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/05/16 81 FR 6344
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/05/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Candace Key, Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, Phone: 202 366-4000, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Split from 2132-AB20, Related to 2132-AB22
RIN: 2132-AB23
DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)
Prerule Stage
82. +Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking regards existing class location
requirements, specifically as they pertain to actions operators are
required to take following class location changes. Operators have
suggested that performing integrity management measures on pipelines
where class locations have changed due to population increases would be
an equally safe but less costly alternative to the current requirements
of either reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe. This
request for public comment would be used to inform future regulatory or
deregulatory efforts related to this topic.
Statement of Need: Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 required the Secretary of
Transportation to evaluate and issue a report on whether integrity
management requirements should be expanded beyond high-consequence
areas and whether such expansion would mitigate the need for class
location requirements. PHMSA issued a Notice of Inquiry on this topic
on August 1, 2013, and issued a report to Congress on its evaluation of
this issue in April 2016. In that report, PHMSA decided to retain the
existing class location requirements, but noted it would further
examine issues related to pipe replacement requirements when class
locations change due to population growth. PHMSA noted that it would
further evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of alternatives to
address this issue following publication of the final rule, ``Pipeline
Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines'' (Docket No. PHMSA-2011-
0023; RIN 2137-AE72). In line with that intent, section 4 of the
Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of
2016 requires PHMSA to provide a report to Congress no later than 18
months after the publication of the gas transmission final rule that
reviews the types of benefits, including safety benefits, and estimated
costs of the legacy class location regulations. Therefore, PHMSA is
initiating this rulemaking to obtain public comment on whether the
performance on integrity management measures on pipelines where class
locations have changed due to population increases would be an equally
safe but less costly alternative to the current class location change
requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework
for regulating the safety of natural gas pipelines in the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA). The NGPSA provided the Secretary
of Transportation the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety
standards for natural gas pipeline facilities. That authority, as
amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the
Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. secs. 60101 et seq.).
Alternatives: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will solicit public opinion
on alternatives to the current class location requirements,
specifically those requirements causing operators to either reduce
pressure, pressure test, or replace pipe when class locations change in
areas due to population increases. One such alternative, as suggested
by certain members of industry, could include the performance of
integrity management measures on affected pipelines. PHMSA is
soliciting and will evaluate and consider additional regulatory
alternatives, including no action.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA believes there is no cost to
this rulemaking action, but we will solicit further information on the
costs and benefits of the current class location requirements as they
pertain to class location changes, as well as the costs and benefits of
any alternatives.
Risks: This rulemaking will provide PHMSA with additional
information as to whether the performance of integrity management (or
other alternatives) in lieu of the current regulatory requirements for
reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe when class
locations change due to population growth will increase, decrease, or
maintain the current level of risk. PHMSA notes that while performing
alternatives to the current regulations might allow for an equivalent
level of risk, there is a potential for greater consequences in an area
where a class location has changed due to population increases along
the pipeline.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Cameron Satterthwaite, Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-1319,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2137-AF29
DOT--PHMSA
Final Rule Stage
83. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
[[Page 1759]]
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Pipeline Safety
Regulations to improve protection of the public, property, and the
environment by closing regulatory gaps where appropriate; 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: This rulemaking addresses Congressional mandates
in the 2011 Pipeline Reauthorization Act (sections 5, 8, 21, 29, 14)
and 2016 PIPES Act (sections 14 and 25); NTSB recommendations P-12-03
and P-12-04; and GAO recommendation 12-388. These statutory mandates
and recommendations follow a number of high profile and high
consequence accidents (e.g., 2010 Marshall, MI spill of almost one
million gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River). PHMSA is
amending the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations to: (1)
Extend reporting requirements to gravity lines that do not meet certain
exceptions; (2) 2xtend 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 onshore transmission
pipelines that are not already covered under the integrity management
(IM) program requirements; (5) expand the use of leak detection systems
on onshore hazardous liquid transmission 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; (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) clarify other regulations to improve compliance
and enforcement. The rule also requires safety data sheets and
inspection of pipelines located at depths greater than 150 feet under
the surface of the water.
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).
The HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation 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: PHMSA proposed alternatives to include offshore and
gathering lines in the scope of provisions requiring assessments
outside of HCAs and leak detection systems, revise the repair criteria
for pipelines outside HCAs, and evaluated additional regulatory
alternatives including no action.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated annualized costs are $18
million. Benefits are presented qualitatively and in terms of breakeven
analysis based on reported consequences from past incidents.
Risks: These changes will provide PHMSA additional data on
pipelines to inform risk evaluation and reduce the probability and
consequences of failures through increased inspections, leak detection,
and other changes to managing pipeline 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.......................... 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Cameron Satterthwaite, Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-1319,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2137-AE66
DOT--PHMSA
84. +Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the pipeline safety
regulations to address integrity management principles for gas
transmission pipelines. The rulemaking would address repair criteria
for high-consequence areas (HCA) and non-HCA areas, assessment methods,
validating and integrating pipeline data, risk assessments, knowledge
gained through the integrity management program, corrosion control,
change management, gathering lines, and safety features on launchers
and receivers.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking is in direct response to
Congressional mandates in the 2011 Pipeline Reauthorization Act,
specifically sec. 4 (e) Gas IM plus 6 months), sec. 5(IM), 8 (leak
detection), 23(b)(2)(exceedance of MAOP); sec. 29 (seismicity). These
statutory mandates and recommendations stem from a number of high
profile and high consequence gas transmission and gathering pipeline
incidents and changes in the industry since the establishment of
existing regulatory requirements (e.g., San Bruno, CA explosion that
killed eight people).
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has authorized Federal regulation
of the transportation of gas by pipeline under the Commerce Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. Authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety
Laws (49 U.S.C. secs. 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are
administered by the DOT, PHMSA. PHMSA has used that authority to
promulgate comprehensive minimum safety standards for the
transportation of gas by pipeline.
Alternatives: PHMSA considered alternatives to establishing a newly
defined moderate consequence area and evaluated requiring assessments
for all pipelines outside HCAs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of annualized
costs are in the range of $40 million; annualized benefits, including
cost savings, are over $200 million.
Risks: This rule addresses known risks to gas transmission and
gathering including the ``grandfather clause'' (exemption for testing
to establish maximum operating pressure for transmission lines) and new
unregulated gathering lines that resemble transmission lines.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/25/11 76 FR 53086
[[Page 1760]]
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 11/16/11 76 FR 70953
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 12/02/11 .......................
End of Extended Comment Period...... 01/20/12 .......................
NPRM................................ 04/08/16 81 FR 20721
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/08/16 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: SB-Y IC-N SLT-N;
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Cameron H. Satterthwaite, Transportation
Regulations Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-8553, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2137-AE72
DOT--PHMSA
85. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
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 would expand the applicability of
comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRP) based on thresholds of
liquid petroleum oil that apply to an entire train consist. The
rulemaking would also require railroads to share information about
high-hazard flammable train operations with State and tribal emergency
response commissions to improve community preparedness in accordance
with the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST
Act). Finally, the rulemaking would incorporate by reference an initial
boiling point test for flammable liquids for better consistency with
the American National Standards Institute/American Petroleum Institute
Recommend Practices 3000, ``Classifying and Loading of Crude Oil into
Rail Tank Cars,'' First Edition, September 2014.
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 mandates in Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, 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 Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 also includes mandates for
the information sharing notification requirements. 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 OSRPs.
Alternatives: In the NPRM, alternatives analyzed included ``no
change'' and changing the applicability threshold to analyze the impact
to affected entities. Under the ``no change'' alternative we would not
proceed with any rulemaking on this subject and the current regulatory
standards would remain in effect. DOT is continuing 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 improving planning and preparedness.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the NPRM, PHMSA performed a
breakeven analysis by identifying the number of gallons of oil that the
NPRM would need to prevent from being spilled in order for its benefits
to at least equal its estimated costs. Additional benefits may also be
incurred due to ecological and human health improvements that may not
be captured in the value of the avoided cost of spilled oil. In the
NPRM PHMSA estimated the rule is cost-effective if the requirements
reduce the consequences of oil spills by 4.9 percent with ten-year
costs estimated at $21,702,175 and annualized costs of $3,089,901(using
a 7 percent discount rate). PHMSA faced data uncertainties that limited
our ability to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule, and is
continuing to analyze anticipated costs and benefits for the final
rule.
Risks: PHMSA expects this rulemaking to mitigate the effects of
potential train accidents involving the release of flammable liquid
energy products by increasing planning and preparedness.
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 Rule.......................... 07/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DOT--PHMSA
86. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported by Aircraft
Priority: Other Significant.
[[Page 1761]]
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 5103(b); 49 U.S.C.
5120(b)
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 173.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the transport of
lithium cells and batteries by aircraft. The IFR contains three
amendments: (1) a prohibition on the transport of lithium ion cells and
batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) a requirement that
lithium ion cells and batteries be shipped at not more than a 30
percent state of charge aboard cargo-only aircraft; and (3) a
limitation on the use of alternative provisions for small lithium cell
or battery shipments to one package per consignment or overpack. These
amendments are consistent with three emergency amendments to the 2015-
2016 International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions
for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical
Instructions).
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to address an immediate
safety hazard and harmonize the US HMR with emergency amendments to the
2015-2016 edition of the International Civil Aviation Organization's
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air
(ICAO Technical Instructions). FAA research has shown that air
transportation of lithium ion batteries poses a safety risk. We are
issuing this rule to (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) limit the use of
alternative provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments
under 49 CFR 173.185(c).
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is published under the authority
of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101
et seq. Section 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security,
of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
This rule revises regulations for the safe transport of lithium
batteries by air and the protection of aircraft operators and the
flying public.
Alternatives: In this rulemaking, PHMSA considered the following
three alternatives: (1) PHMSA adopts all of the amendments presented in
the rule; (2) a No Action alternative; and (3) a Partial Harmonization
alternative.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the analysis described in
this RIA, at the mean, PHMSA estimates the present value costs about
$39.4 million over 10 years and about $5.6 million annualized (at a
seven percent discount rate). Based on the estimated average 10-year
cost of $39.4 million discounted at seven percent and the average 10-
year VSL value of $6.74 million discounted at seven percent, this rule
would need to prevent more than 5.9 fatalities ($39.4 million/$6.74
million) over the next 10 years for the benefits to exceed the
quantified costs.
Risks: PHMSA expects the rule will improve safety for flight crews,
air cargo operators, and the public as a result of the state of charge
requirement and the consignment and overpack restriction by reducing
the possibility of fire on cargo-only aircraft. Additionally, the rule
will harmonize the prohibition of lithium ion batteries as cargo on
passenger aircraft and eliminate the possibility of a package of
lithium ion batteries causing or contributing to a fire in the cargo
hold of a passenger aircraft.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 02/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: HM-224I;.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Leary, 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].
RIN: 2137-AF20
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 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, 13609, and 13771 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.
Treasury is still in the process of evaluating its deregulatory and
regulatory actions for FY 2018. At this time, Treasury anticipates
possibly up to 25 deregulatory actions, and 2 regulatory actions.
Further information about these actions can be found in this Regulatory
Plan and Unified Agenda.
I. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues
regulations to implement and enforce 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 products, firearms, and
ammunition;
(2) Protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol
products; and
[[Page 1762]]
(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 seeks to identify 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 regulations to facilitate industry growth and reduce burdens
where possible. At the same time, TTB must ensure that it collects the
revenue due and protects consumers from deceptive labeling and
advertising of alcohol beverages.
In FY 2018, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that reduce regulatory
burdens, provide greater industry flexibility, and streamline the
regulatory system, consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777.
TTB rulemaking priorities also include proposing regulatory changes in
response to petitions from industry members and other interested
parties, and requesting comments on ways TTB may further reduce burden
and support a level playing field for the regulated industry.
Specifically, during the fiscal year, TTB plans to publish a
deregulatory final rule, following a notice published in FY 2017, which
reduces the number of reports submitted by certain regulated industry
members. TTB also plans to publish for public comment proposed
deregulatory changes to reduce the information it requires in
connection with permit applications and to expand industry flexibility
with regard to alcohol beverage container sizes (standards of fill).
Some changes will require amending regulations and others will require
only changes to the information collected on forms. Priority projects
also include continuing the rulemaking issued in FY 2017 in response to
industry member petitions to authorize new wine treating materials and
processes, new grape varietal names for use on labels of wine, and new
American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). None of the TTB rulemaking
documents issued in FY 2018 are expected to be ``regulatory actions''
as described in Executive Order 13771.
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following
deregulatory and regulatory measures:
Proposal To Streamline and Modernize Permit Application
Process (RINs: 1513-AC46, 1513-AC47, 1513-AC48, and 1513-AC49,
Modernization of Permit and Registration Application Requirements for
Distilled Spirits Plants, Permit Applications for Wineries,
Qualification Requirements for Brewers, and Permit Application
Requirements for Manufacturers of Tobacco Products or Processed
Tobacco, respectively). (Deregulatory)
Consistent with E.O. 13771 and 13777, in FY 2017, TTB engaged in a
review of its regulations to identify any regulatory requirements that
could potentially be eliminated, modified, or streamlined in order to
reduce burdens on industry. Through four notices of proposed
rulemaking, TTB intends to propose eliminating or streamlining various
information requirements for application or qualification of distilled
spirits plants, wineries, breweries, and manufacturers of tobacco
products or processed tobacco. In addition, TTB continues to review
comments it receives from the interested public, including industry
members, through the Treasury Department's Request for Information on
deregulatory ideas (Docket No. TREAS-DO-2017-0012, published in the
Federal Register on June 14, 2017), and TTB intends to address those
related to application and qualification processes through these
notices.
Proposed Revisions to the Regulations To Provide Greater
Flexibility in the Use of Wine and Distilled Spirits Containers (RIN:
1513-AB56, Standards of Fill for Wine, and RIN: 1513-AC45, Standards of
Fill for Distilled Spirits). (Deregulatory)
In these two notices, TTB will address petitions requesting that it
amend regulations governing wine and distilled spirits containers to
provide for additional authorized ``standards of fill.'' (The term
``standard of fill'' generally relates to the size of containers,
although the specific regulatory meaning is the authorized amount of
liquid in the container, rather than the size or capacity of the
container itself.) Rather than proposing the addition of new authorized
sizes, however, TTB will propose to eliminate all but minimum and
maximum standards of fill for distilled spirits containers, and all but
a minimum standard of fill for wine containers. If implemented, this
proposal would provide industry members greater flexibility in
producing and sourcing containers and consumers broader purchasing
options. This deregulatory action would also eliminate restrictions
that inhibit competition and the movement of goods in domestic and
international commerce, in addition to providing new opportunities for
meeting consumer demand.
Revisions to the Regulations To Reduce Report Filing
Frequency (RIN: 1513-AC30, Changes to Certain Alcohol-Related
Regulations Governing Bond Requirements and Tax Return Filing Periods).
(Deregulatory)
On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law the
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (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
Internal Revenue Code regarding excise tax return due dates and bond
requirements for certain smaller excise taxpayers. These amendments
took effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB published a temporary
rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. At the
same time, TTB published in the Federal Register (82 FR 780) a notice
of proposed rulemaking requesting comments on the amendments made in
the temporary rule and proposing further amendments to the regulations
governing reporting requirements for distilled spirits plants (DSPs)
and breweries to reduce the regulatory burden on industry members who
pay taxes and file tax returns annually or quarterly. Under the
proposal, those industry members would also submit reports annually or
quarterly, aligned with their filing of the tax return, rather than
monthly as generally provided under current regulations. To be eligible
for annual or quarterly filing, the DSP or brewery must reasonably
expect to be liable for not more than $1,000 in excise taxes (in the
case of annual filing) or $50,000 in excise taxes (in the case of
quarterly filing) for the calendar year and must have been liable for
not more than these respective amounts in the preceding calendar year.
The reduced reporting frequency will reduce regulatory burdens on these
smaller industry members.
Proposal to Modernize the Alcohol Beverage Labeling and
Advertising Requirements (RIN: 1513-AB54). (Deregulatory)
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 alcohol beverage 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
[[Page 1763]]
marketplace. As a result of this review, and further review in FY 2017
consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, regarding reducing
regulatory burdens, in FY 2018, TTB plans to propose revisions to
consolidate and modernize the 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 also anticipates that this notice for public comment
will give industry members another opportunity to provide comments and
suggestions on any additional deregulatory measures in these areas.
In FY 2018, TTB intends to bring to completion a number of
rulemaking projects published as notices of proposed rulemaking in FY
2017 in response to industry member petitions to amend the TTB
regulations:
Proposal to Amend the Regulations to Authorize the Use of
Additional Wine Treating Materials (RIN: 1513-AB61). (Not significant)
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its regulations pertaining to the
production of wine to authorize additional treatments that may be
applied to wine and to juice from which wine is made. These proposed
amendments were made in response to requests from wine industry members
to authorize certain wine treating materials and processes not
currently authorized by TTB regulations. Although TTB may
administratively approve such treatments, rulemaking may serve several
purposes, including acceptance of exported wine made using those
treatments in foreign markets. Administrative approval of a wine
treatment does not guarantee acceptance in foreign markets of any wine
so treated, and conducting rulemaking and adding wine treating
materials and processes to TTB regulations through notice and comment
rulemaking results in acceptance of the treated wines in certain
foreign jurisdictions. TTB intends to reopen the comment period for the
FY 2017 notice, as requested by industry members and, after
consideration of the comments, issue a final rule.
Proposal to Amend the Regulations to Add New Grape Variety
Names for American Wines (RIN: 1513-AC24). (Not significant)
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its wine labeling regulations by
adding a number of new names to the list of grape variety names
approved for use in designating American wines. The proposed
deregulatory amendments would allow wine bottlers to use these
additional approved grape variety names on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. TTB intends to reopen the comment period for the FY
2017 notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration
of the comments, issue a final rule.
II. 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, but further
provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority
to approve such regulations.
During fiscal year 2018, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to
regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions which
streamline CBP procedures, protect the public, or are required by
either statute or Executive Order. The examples of these efforts
described below are exempt from Executive Order 13771 as they are non-
significant rules as defined by Executive Order. Examples of these
efforts are described below.
Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties. (Not significant)
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim regulations (81 FR 56477)
which amended CBP regulations implementing section 421 of the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which set forth
procedures to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and
countervailing duty orders.
Drawback. (Economically significant; not yet determined)
Treasury and CBP plan to amend CBP regulations to implement changes
to the drawback law contained in section 906 of the Trade Facilitation
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. These proposed changes to the
regulations will liberalize the standard for substituting merchandise,
simplify recordkeeping requirements, extend and standardize timelines
for filing drawback claims, and require the electronic filing of
drawback claims.
Enforcement of Copyrights and the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. (Significance not yet determined)
Treasury and CBP plan to propose amendments to the CBP regulations
pertaining to importations of merchandise that violate or are suspected
of violating the copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), in accordance with Title III of the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) and Executive
Order 13785 ``Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Anti-
dumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs
Laws.'' The proposed amendments are intended to enhance CBP's
enforcement efforts against increasingly sophisticated piratical goods,
clarify the definition of piracy, simplify the detention process
relative to goods suspected of violating the copyright laws, and
prescribe new regulations enforcing the DMCA.
Inter-Partes Proceedings Concerning Exclusion Orders Based
on Unfair Practices in Import Trade. (Deregulatory)
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.
III. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
As 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 (AML) 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
[[Page 1764]]
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 AML
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 AML
initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as
well as foreign financial intelligence units.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, include:
Technical Amendment to the Customer Due Diligence
Requirements. (Not significant)
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. The section of the rule
detailing the training requirements for mutual funds was inadvertently
omitted from the final rule. This technical amendment will rectify the
inadvertent omission and will update several references and
terminology.
Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.
(Deregulatory)
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. (Regulatory)
On April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing amendments to the regulatory definitions of broker or dealer
in securities under the BSA's 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's requirements that
are currently applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks
Lacking a Federal Functional Regulator. (Regulatory)
On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to remove the 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.
Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for
Investment Advisers. (Regulatory)
On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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. FinCEN is considering those comments and preparing
a Final Rule.
Registration Requirements of Money Services Businesses.
(Regulatory)
FinCEN is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
amending the registration requirements for money services businesses.
Changes to the Travel and Recordkeeping Requirements for
Funds Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. (Regulatory)
FinCEN is considering regulatory changes that would require
financial institutions to collect and maintain more information
regarding funds transfers and transmittals of funds, as well as lower
the existing recordkeeping threshold.
Changes to the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report
(CMIR) Reporting Requirements. (Significance not yet determined)
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 ongoing efforts with respect
to a comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory
efficiency.
IV. 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 Government
wide 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 2018, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to
the following regulatory projects:
Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect Past-Due Support.
(Not significant)
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
[[Page 1765]]
debtor taxpayer was not entitled. The Fiscal Service anticipates
publishing a Final Rule for this time limit for such recoupments in
fiscal year 2018.
Management of Federal Agency Receipts, Disbursements and
Operation of the Cash Management Improvements Fund. (Significance not
yet determined)
The Fiscal Service plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
to amend 31 CFR part 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.
Payments by Banks and Other Financial Institutions of
United States Savings Bonds and United States Savings Notes (Freedom
Shares). (Not significant)
The Fiscal Service plans to amend the savings bond payment
regulations in 31 CFR part 321 to formally add an option for paying
agent financial institutions to digitally stamp payment information on
paid bond images, instead of physically stamping the information on the
original paid bonds. This change will not impose any new burden on
banks or customers, and will align the regulation with current practice
that has been implemented under waiver authority. The Fiscal Service
also plans to amend the paper savings bond regulations to eliminate the
current conversion and reissue transactions, which are expensive to
process.
V. 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.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018 include the following
regulatory actions:
Regulatory Capital Rules: Retention of Existing Transition
Levels for Certain Regulatory Capital Adjustments and Deductions (12
CFR part 3).
The banking agencies \1\ issued a final rule that would extend the
current treatment under the regulatory capital rules (capital rules)
for certain regulatory capital deductions and risk weights and certain
minority interest requirements as they apply to banking organizations
that are not subject to the advanced approaches capital rules (non-
advanced approaches banking organizations). Specifically, for non-
advanced approaches banking organizations, the agencies extended the
current regulatory capital treatment of: mortgage servicing assets;
deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not
be realized through net operating loss carrybacks; significant
investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in
the form of common stock; non-significant investments in the capital of
unconsolidated financial institutions; significant investments in the
capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that are not in the
form of common stock; and common equity tier 1 minority interest, tier
1 minority interest, and total capital minority interest exceeding the
capital rules' minority interest limitations. The proposed rule was
published on August 25, 2017, 82 FR 40495. The final rule was issued on
November 21, 2017, 82 FR 55309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(Board), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appraisal Threshold (12 CFR part 34).
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule addressing comments
received through the process of regulatory review required by the
Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996
Amendments (EGRPRA), concerning the regulatory burden associated with
appraisals. The rulemaking would expand the current exemption in the
interagency rules for appraisals of commercial properties by increasing
the appraisal threshold in 12 CFR part 34 (and in the corresponding
regulations of the FDIC and FRB), which is currently set at $250,000.
The proposed rule was published on July 31, 2017, 82 FR 35478.
Securities Transaction Settlement Cycle (12 CFR parts 12
and 151).
The OCC and FDIC plan to issue a final rule to shorten the standard
settlement cycle for certain securities purchased or sold by national
banks, federal savings associations, and FDIC-supervised institutions.
The proposed rule was published on September 11, 2017, 82 FR 42619.
Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood
Insurance (12 CFR part 22).
The banking agencies, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) plan to issue a final 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 proposed
rule was published on November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards (12 CFR part 30).
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
setting forth enhanced cyber risk management standards for the largest
and most interconnected financial organizations in the United States.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on October 26,
2016, 81 FR 74315.
Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part
42).
Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act)
requires the banking agencies, NCUA, Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (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 jointly to 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
published on June 10, 2016, 81 FR 37669.
Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified
Financial Contracts (12 CFR parts 3, 47, and 50).
The OCC plans to issue a final rule that mitigates potential
negative impacts that could result from the disorderly resolution of
certain systemically important national banks, Federal savings
associations, Federal branches
[[Page 1766]]
and agencies, and the subsidiaries of these entities. A covered bank
would be required to ensure that a covered qualified financial contract
(i) contains a contractual stay-and-transfer provision analogous to the
statutory stay-and-transfer provisions imposed under title II and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act and (ii) limits the exercise of default
rights based on the insolvency of an affiliate of the covered bank. The
proposed rule was published on August 19, 2016, 81 FR 55381.
Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50).
The banking agencies plan to issue a final 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 published on June 1, 2016,
81 FR 35123.
Qualifying Master Netting Agreement (12 CFR part 3).
The OCC plans to finalize its interim final rule to amend the
definition of ``qualifying master netting agreement'' under its
regulatory capital and liquidity coverage ratio rule, as well as under
its lending limits rule applicable to national banks and FSAs. The
interim final rule was published on December 30, 2014, 79 FR 78287.
Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (12 CFR parts 25
and 195).
The banking agencies issued a final rule to amend the home mortgage
loan and consumer loan definitions in their regulations implementing
the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to conform to recent changes made
by the CFPB to Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) and make some additional technical revisions. The
proposed rule was published on September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43910. The
final rule was issued on November 24, 2017, 82 FR 55734.
Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and
Relationships with Covered Funds (12 CFR part 44).
In light of the 2017 Treasury Report, the OCC expects to issue a
proposed rule to amend certain provisions of part 44.
Management Official Interlocks Asset Thresholds (12 CFR
part 26).
The OCC plans to issue a direct final rule, through joint action
with the FRB and FDIC that would amend agency regulations interpreting
the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA) to
increase the asset thresholds based on inflation or market changes. The
current asset thresholds are set at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion.
Customer Due Diligence (12 CFR part 21).
The banking agencies plan to issue an interim final rule 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 expanded 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 satisfy program requirements under 31
U.S.C. 5318(h)(1) and the agencies are amending their anti-money
laundering program rules to reference requirements in the FinCEN Rule.
Capital Simplification (12 CFR part 3).
The banking agencies issued a proposed rule to simplify the
generally applicable capital framework with the goal of meaningfully
reducing regulatory burden on community banking organizations while at
the same time maintaining safety and soundness and the quality and
quantity of regulatory capital in the banking system. The proposed rule
was issued on October 27, 2017, 82 FR 49984.
Automated Valuation Models (parts 34 and 164).
The banking agencies, NCUA, FHFA, and the 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 addressing 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 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.
Employment Contracts (12 CFR part 163).
The OCC plans to issue a proposed rule to remove the requirement
that the board of directors of an FSA approve employment contracts with
all employees and limit the approval requirement only to contracts with
senior executives.
Receiverships for Uninsured Federal Branches and Agencies
(12 CFR chapter I).
The OCC plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
setting forth key issues to be addressed prior to the development of a
framework for receiverships of uninsured federal branches and agencies.
VI. Internal Revenue Service
During Fiscal Year 2018, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax
Policy have the following regulatory priorities. The first priority is
to implement, consistent with law, actions recommended in the Second
Report pursuant to Executive Order 13789 to eliminate, or in other
cases reduce, the burdens imposed on taxpayers by eight regulations
that the Treasury has identified for review under Executive Order
13789. These deregulatory actions include:
1. Withdrawal of proposed regulations under section 2704 regarding
restrictions on liquidation of an interest for estate, gift, and
generation-skipping transfer taxes. Proposed regulations were published
on August 4, 2016.
2. Withdrawal of proposed regulations under section 103 regarding
the definition of political subdivision. Proposed regulations were
published on February 23, 2016.
3. Proposed amendment of regulations under section 7602 regarding
the participation of attorneys described in section 6103(n) in a
summons interview. Final regulations were published on July 14, 2016.
4. Proposed removal of temporary regulations under section 707
concerning treatment of liabilities for disguised sale purposes and
review of
[[Page 1767]]
regulations under section 752 concerning liabilities recognized as
recourse partnership liabilities. Temporary and proposed regulations
were published on October 5, 2016.
5. Delay and proposed removal of documentation regulations under
section 385 and review of other regulations under section 385. Final,
temporary, and proposed regulations were published on October 21, 2016.
6. Proposed modification of regulations under section 367 regarding
the treatment of certain transfers of property to foreign corporations.
Final regulations were published on December 16, 2016.
7. Proposed modification of regulations under section 337(d)
regarding certain transfers of property to regulated investment
companies (RICs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs). Temporary
and proposed regulations were published on June 8, 2016.
8. Proposed modification of regulations under section 987 on income
and currency gain or loss with respect to a section 987 qualified
business unit. Final regulations were published on December 8, 2016.
The second priority is, in furtherance of the policies stated in
Executive Order 13789, Executive Order 13771, and Executive Order
13777, to undertake a comprehensive review, coordinated by the Treasury
Regulatory Reform Task Force, of all tax regulations, regardless of
when they were issued. This review will identify tax regulations that
are unnecessary, create undue complexity, impose excessive burdens, or
fail to provide clarity and useful guidance, and Treasury and the IRS
will pursue, consistent with law, reform or revocation of those
regulations. Included in the review are longstanding temporary or
proposed regulations that have not expired or been finalized. As part
of the process coordinated by the Treasury Regulatory Reform Task
Force, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel has already identified over 300
regulations for potential revocation. These regulations remain in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but are, to varying degrees,
unnecessary, duplicative, or outdated, and force taxpayers to navigate
unnecessarily complex or even confusing rules. Treasury and the IRS
expect to begin the process of proposing to address these regulations
in the fourth quarter of 2017. Treasury and the IRS are also seeking to
streamline rules where possible and to repeal or revise regulations
that have been superseded by statute or case law.
The IRS and Treasury are also prioritizing implementation of the
President's Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and
Competition Across the United States. The Executive Order, among other
things, directs Treasury and the Departments of Labor and Health and
Human Services to consider proposing or revising regulations or
guidance to expand the availability of short-term, limited-duration
insurance and consider proposing or revising regulations or guidance to
increase the usability of health reimbursement arrangements.
An additional priority for the IRS is to publish final regulations
under section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) that are
necessary to implement the new centralized partnership audit regime
enacted in November 2015. Section 1101(g)(1) of the BBA provides that
the new regime is generally effective for partnership tax years
beginning after December 31, 2017.
Finally, Treasury and the IRS anticipate the need to undertake
numerous regulatory actions to implement any new legislation enacted in
the coming year, including the Administration's current Tax Reform
efforts.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-S
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.
(1.) VA Regulatory Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Summary of Rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AO88..................... Per Diem Paid to This rulemaking would
States for Care of adopt as final, with
Eligible Veterans changes, proposed
in State Homes. amendments to VA's
regulations governing
payment of per diem to
State Veterans homes
for nursing home care,
domiciliary care, and
adult day health care
for eligible veterans.
This rulemaking would
also reorganize,
update, and clarify
State Veterans homes
regulations, authorize
greater flexibility in
adult day health care
programs, and establish
regulations regarding
domiciliary care, with
clarifications
regarding the care that
State homes must
provide to veterans in
domiciliaries.
AP46..................... Prosthetic and The Department of
Rehabilitative Veterans Affairs (VA)
Items and Services. proposes to amend its
regulations related to
providing prosthetic
and rehabilitative
items as medical
services to veterans.
These amendments would
reorganize and update
the current
regulations.
Substantively, these
amendments would
primarily clarify
eligibility criteria
for prosthetic and
other rehabilitative
items and services, and
would define the types
of items and services
available to eligible
veterans.
[[Page 1768]]
AP89..................... Change in rates This document proposes
that VA pays for amendments to the
ambulance travel. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA)
regulations concerning
beneficiary travel. The
revisions would update
the regulations to
conform to a statute
that authorizes VA to
pay the lesser of the
actual cost of
ambulance
transportation or the
amount determined by
the ambulance travel
fee schedule
established by Centers
for Medicare and
Medicaid, unless VA has
entered into a contract
for that ambulance
transportation.
AQ06..................... Authority of Health To continue to provide
Care Providers to high quality health
Practice care to veterans, the
Telehealth. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is
amending its
regulations to allow VA
health care providers
who are licensed,
registered, or
certified in ``a
State'' to practice
their medical specialty
in any State when they
are acting within the
scope of their VA
employment, regardless
of individual State
licensure,
registration, or
certification
restrictions, except
for applicable State
restrictions on the
authority to prescribe
and administer
controlled substances.
Through this
rulemaking, health care
providers would be able
to provide health care
services across State
lines and in States
where they do not hold
a license,
registration, or
certification, which
will increase VA's
capacity to use its
current medical
resources in varied
health care delivery
modalities,
particularly through
telehealth, increasing
the number of patient
encounters and
increasing access to VA
health care. This rule
will allow VA health
care providers to
practice in accordance
with their
competencies, as
reflected by their
clinical privileges or
scope of practice. In
this rulemaking, VA
will exercise Federal
preemption of State
licensure,
registration, and
certification laws only
to the extent such
State laws conflict
with the health care
provider's ability to
practice across state
lines while acting
within the scope of
their VA employment.
AQ08..................... Reimbursement for The Department of
Emergency Veterans Affairs (VA)
Treatment. revises its regulations
concerning payment or
reimbursement for
emergency treatment for
non-service-connected
conditions at non-VA
facilities to implement
the requirements of a
recent court decision.
Specifically, this
rulemaking expands
eligibility for payment
or reimbursement to
include veterans who
receive partial payment
from a health-plan
contract for non-VA
emergency treatment and
establishes a
corresponding
reimbursement
methodology. This
rulemaking also expands
the eligibility
criteria for veterans
to receive payment or
reimbursement for
emergency
transportation
associated with the
emergency treatment, in
order to ensure that
veterans are adequately
covered when emergency
transportation is a
necessary part of their
non-VA emergency
treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2.) Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduce burdens
RIN Title on small businesses Summary of Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple RINs............... Revise and Streamline No.......................... The Department of Veterans
VA Acquisition Affairs (VA) is proposing
Regulation to Adhere to amend and update its VA
to Federal Acquisition. Acquisition Regulation
(VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or
remove any policy
superseded by changes in
the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR), to
remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the
VAAM, and to incorporate
any new agency specific
regulations or policies.
These changes seek to
streamline and align the
VAAR with the FAR and
remove outdated and
duplicative requirements
and reduce burden on
contractors. The VAAM
incorporates the VAAR as
well as internal agency
acquisition policy. VA
will rewrite certain parts
of the VAAR and VAAM, and
as VAAR parts are
rewritten, will publish it
in the Federal Register.
To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will
combine relatable topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA's most recent report on its retrospective review of regulations
can be found at: http://vaww.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_VA_OIRA_Status_Report.pdf
VA
Proposed Rule Stage
87. Prosthetic and Rehabilitative Items and Services
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 1162; 38 U.S.C. 1701; 38
U.S.C. 1707; 38 U.S.C. 1710; 38 U.S.C. 1714; 38 U.S.C. 1717; 38 U.S.C.
3901
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.120; 38 CFR 17.122; 38 CFR 17.150; 38 CFR
17.153; 38 CFR 17.3200 to 17.3250
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend
its regulations related to providing prosthetic and rehabilitative
items as medical services to veterans. These amendments would
reorganize and update the current regulations.
[[Page 1769]]
Substantively, these amendments would primarily clarify eligibility
criteria for prosthetic and other rehabilitative items and services,
and would define the types of items and services available to eligible
veterans.
Statement of Need: VA proposes to amend its regulations related to
providing prosthetic and rehabilitative items as medical services to
veterans. These amendments would clarify eligibility criteria for
prosthetic and other rehabilitative items and services, and define the
types of items and services available to eligible veterans.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1710 authorizes VA to provide,
among other things, medical services to veterans when VA determines
that they are needed. ``Medical services'' is defined in 38 U.S.C.
1701(6)(F) to include the following specific items and services:
wheelchairs, artificial limbs, trusses, and similar appliances; special
clothing made necessary by the wearing of prosthetic appliances; and
such other supplies or services as the Secretary determines to be
reasonable and necessary. Section 1710(a) authorizes VA to furnish
hospital care and medical services ``which the Secretary determines to
be needed.'' In this regulation, VA is addressing the scope of items
and services that may be provided as medical services under sections
1701(6)(F) and 1710(a).
Alternatives: VA considered the consequences of taking no action.
If VA made no changes at all to its regulations, however, they would
remain inconsistent with our current practices. The current regulations
also include a limited list of examples of prosthetic items and
services that are provided, which can be misinterpreted as an
exhaustive list. The proposed rule includes a broader and non-
exhaustive list, which provides more clarity to Veterans about the
benefits to which they are entitled. The eligibility for such items
under the current regulation would also be inconsistent with VA's
authority to provide prosthetics under Public Law 104-262, section
103(a). VA considered updating its internal policies instead of its
regulations. Because the changes in this rulemaking would impact and
limit Veterans' benefits, a change to existing regulations was deemed
necessary. We also could have made substantive updates to existing
regulations rather than create a new section for the provision of these
benefits. However, that would have been cumbersome and confusing, and
would not have allowed us to adequately describe the eligibility for,
and provision of, these benefits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined that there are
transfers associated with this rulemaking. The cumulative five-year
savings are estimated to be $85 million. The government will transfer
$85 million less to eligible veterans.
There are no new collections of information associated with this
rulemaking. However, there is a proposed discontinuance of use of VA
Form 10-2520, which is part of an existing collection under 2900-0188.
The estimated burden elimination is 47 annual hours, which results in
an information collection costs savings to the public (vendor) in the
amount of $1,121.42.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/16/17 82 FR 48018
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/15/17 .......................
Final Action........................ 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Penny Nechanicky, National Program Director for
Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service (10P4RK), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-
0337, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP46
VA
88. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V005, Parts
812 and 813)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
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 and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This Proposed Rule
will revise VAAR parts 812 and 813, as well as affected part 852.
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), 41 U.S.C. 1707.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs, savings
and/or information collection burden costs/savings associated with this
rulemaking. VA is merely adding existing and current regulatory
requirements to the VAAR parts and removing any guidance that is
applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures and
placing that guidance in the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Manual
(VAAM).
Risks:
Timetable:
[[Page 1770]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP58
VA
89. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V004, Parts
811 and 832)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 811; 48 CFR 832; 48 CFR 852; 48
CFR 1.3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This Proposed Rule
will revise VAAR parts 811 and 832, as well as affected parts 801, 852
and 870.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes to streamline
the VAAR, implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and
removing internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles
concerning agency acquisition regulations, 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), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR
1.3.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs or
savings associated with this rulemaking. VA is merely adding existing
and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any
guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operation processes
or procedures. This proposed rule impacts 7 existing information
collection requirements associated with 6 Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number approvals. The total incremental savings of
this information collection is estimated to be $50,660.00.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP81
VA
90. Beneficiary Travel
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101; 38 U.S.C. 111; 38 U.S.C. 111A; E.O.
11302; E.O. 13520
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 70.1; 38 CFR 70.2; 38 CFR 70.4; 38 CFR 70.10
to 70.30
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes amendments to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations concerning beneficiary travel. The
revisions would update the regulations to conform to amendments to the
statutes that authorize beneficiary travel benefits, and would also
reorganize and clarify the current regulations. VA is also proposing to
modify certain provisions to establish new VA policies and procedures
to expand travel benefits for veterans and other beneficiaries in
several areas, including for veterans and donors undergoing organ
transplants, those being transferred between facilities, and for
veterans with terminal illnesses.
Statement of Need: VA proposes to amend its regulations concerning
beneficiary travel. The revisions would update the regulations to
conform to a statute authorizing VA to pay the lesser of the actual
cost of ambulance transportation or the amount determined by the
ambulance travel fee schedule established by Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid, unless VA has entered into a contract for that ambulance
transportation.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 111 authorizes VA to provide
beneficiary travel benefits to eligible veterans who need to travel for
examination, treatment, or care. We propose to amend the relevant
regulations to conform to changes made by Pub. L. 112-56 and 112-154,
permitting VA to pay the lesser of the actual cost ambulance
transportation or the amount determined by the fee schedule established
under section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)),
unless VA has entered into a contract for that transportation.
Alternatives: VA considered the consequences of taking no action.
We concluded, however, that taking doing so would cause VHA to continue
to pay non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) market rates, which
are up to 25% higher than Medicare, based on several variables
including the location of the VA Medical Center. VA considered
alternatives such as seeking a national contract for BT NEMT services.
However, it became apparent that taking this action would dampen
current market-based pricing schemes and the pricing schemes would
likely remain above Medicare rates. Moreover, creating a market of this
type would not permit VA to avail itself of any cost
[[Page 1771]]
savings. VA believes that a rulemaking, rather than a policy document,
is the appropriate mechanism to change its payment rates for non-
emergency medical transportation because this change affects the rights
and obligations of the public.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined that there are no
transfer costs associated with this rulemaking. However, there are
transfers estimated at $47 million in FY 2018 and $252.4 million over a
five year period (FY 2018-2022). The government will save money as a
result of VA making transport payments under the CMS methodology
instead of utilizing non-contract special mode transportation payments,
the CMS methodology payments are less. There are no other ancillary
costs associated with this rulemaking. There are no provisions
constituting a collection or reduction of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, we expect no increased and/or
decreased PRA costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mike Davis, Director Member Services (10NF),
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20420, Phone: 404 828-5691, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP89
VA
91. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015-V010)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C.
1121(c)(3)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 831; 48 CFR 833; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 871; 48
CFR 1.301 to 1.303.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This proposed
rulemaking revises VAAR parts 831, 833, 852 and 871.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes to streamline
the VAAR, implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and
removing internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles
concerning agency acquisition regulations, are clarifying that the cost
principles apply to the negotiation of prices under fixed-price
contracts as well as to costs under cost reimbursement contracts, and
to contracts with educational institutions as well as those with
commercial and non-profit organizations; Adding a definition section;
And, adding language that pursuant to Public Law 114-328, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) will also hear cases related to size,
status, and ownership and control challenges under the VA Veterans
First Contracting Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C.
1121(c)(3), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 301-1.304
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfers associated
with this rulemaking. VA is merely adding existing and current
regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is
applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures.
There are no provisions constituting a collection or reduction of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, we expect no
increased and/or decreased PRA costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and Warrant
Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202
382-2787, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ02
VA
92. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principle (VAAR Case 2016-V002, Parts
829, 846 and 847)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5214(a); 26 U.S.C. 5271; 26 U.S.C. 7510;
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303(a)(2)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 829; 48 CFR 846; 48 CFR 847; 48 CFR 852; 48
CFR 870; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This Proposed Rule
revises VAAR parts 829, 846, 847, as well as affected parts 852 and
870.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes to streamline
the VAAR, implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and
removing internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles
[[Page 1772]]
concerning agency acquisition regulations, are adding definitions; in
section 829.303, application of State and local taxes to Government
contractors and subcontractors, delegating to the Head of the
Contracting Activity (HCA), without power of redelegation, the
authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 29.303(a); and in
new clause 852.246-71, Rejected Goods, clarifying a contractor's
obligations to remove goods rejected by the Government.
Summary of Legal Basis: 26 U.S.C. 5214(a), 5271, 7510; 40 U.S.C.
121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303(a)(2), 48 CFR 1.301-1.304
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfers associated
with this rulemaking. VA is merely adding existing and current
regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is
applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures.
There are no provisions constituting a collection or reduction of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, we expect no
increased and/or decreased PRA costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and Warrant
Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202
382-2787, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ04
VA
93. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principle (VAAR Case 2016-V003, Parts
844 and 845)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 844; 48 CFR 845; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This proposed
rulemaking revises VAAR parts 844 and 845.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes to streamline
the VAAR, implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and
removing internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles
concerning agency acquisition regulations, are adding the requirement,
before a contracting officer consents to a subcontract where other than
the lowest price is the basis for selection, that the contractor has
substantiated the selection as offering the greatest value to the
Government; And, requiring that contractor purchasing system reviews
focus special attention, on policies and procedures pertaining to the
Veterans First Contracting Program, Documentation of commercial item
determinations to ensure compliance with the definition of commercial
item in FAR 2.101, and for acquisitions involving electronic parts,
whether the contractor has implemented a counterfeit electronic part
detection and avoidance system to ensure that counterfeit electronic
parts do not enter the supply chain.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR
1.301 to 1.304.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfers associated
with this rulemaking. VA is merely adding existing and current
regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is
applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures.
This action contains no provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
to 3521). Therefore, we expect no increased and/or decreased PRA costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and Warrant
Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202
382-2787, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ05
VA
94. Authority of Health Care Providers To Practice Telehealth
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 1701 (note); 38 U.S.C.
1709A; 38 U.S.C. 1712A (note); 38 U.S.C. 1722B; 38 U.S.C. 7301; 38
U.S.C. 7330A; 38 U.S.C. 7401 to 7403; 38 U.S.C. 7406 (note)
CFR Citation: 38 FR 17.417.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend
its
[[Page 1773]]
medical regulations by standardizing the delivery of care by VA health
care providers through telehealth. The rule would ensure that VA health
care providers provide the same level of care to all beneficiaries,
irrespective of the State or location in a State of the health care
provider or the beneficiary. This rule would achieve important Federal
interests by ensuring the availability of mental health, specialty, and
general clinical care for all beneficiaries.
Statement of Need: VA proposes to amend its medical regulations by
standardizing the delivery of care by VA health care providers through
telehealth. This rule would ensure that VA health care providers
provide the same level of care to all beneficiaries, irrespective of
the State or location in a State of the VA health care provider or the
beneficiary. This rule would achieve important Federal interests by
increasing the availability of mental health, specialty, and general
clinical care for all beneficiaries.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 7301(b) establishes the general
functions of VHA within VA, and establishes that its primary function
is to ``provide a complete medical and hospital service for the medical
care and treatment of veterans, as provided in this title and in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs
(Secretary)] pursuant to this title.'' In carrying out this function,
VHA must ensure that patient care is appropriate and safe and its
health care providers meet or exceed generally accepted professional
standards for patient care. In addition, because VA is a national
health care provider, VHA must ensure that beneficiaries receive the
same high level of care and access to care no matter where, in a State,
a beneficiary or health care provider is located at the time the health
care is provided.
Alternatives: VA considered the consequences of taking no
regulatory action. Doing so would leave VA telehealth providers
vulnerable to adverse action, such as discipline or termination of
licenses by their state licensing boards if they provide services to
beneficiaries in States in which the providers are not licensed,
registered, certified, or located. Under those circumstances, VA has
found that some of its medical providers cannot effectively practice
telehealth, which limit's VA's ability to provide care to Veterans,
particularly in remote, rural, or medically underserved areas. VA's
only remedy for that issue is to supersede state law, and the
appropriate mechanism to do so is in rulemaking. By superseding state
law in this rulemaking, VA will ensure greater access to care for
Veterans and beneficiaries.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA anticipates minimal (transfer)
costs to VA as a result of this rulemaking. However, VA's ability to
leverage existing resources to expand telehealth under an expanded
authority will result in (transfer) savings to VA. These savings to VA
will offset the anticipated minimal costs to VA. This rulemaking
contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 to 3521).
Therefore, we expect no increased and/or decreased PRA costs.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/02/17 82 FR 45756
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/01/17
Final Action........................ 05/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: Kevin Galpin, Executive Director, Telehealth
Services (10P8), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 404 771-8794, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ06
VA
95. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V008)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801, 825, 836, 842, 846 and 852.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics.
Statement of Need: The rulemaking would update the VAAR to current
FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it would correct
inconsistencies and removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it would also delete outdated material or
information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and
provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and
arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been reviewed
and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency
stakeholders. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and
revised only through rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 48 CFR 1.301 to
1.304.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs or
savings associated with this rulemaking. The total estimated annual
cost savings to respondents as a result of this rulemaking is estimated
to be $82,685.00.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant
[[Page 1774]]
Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202
632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ18
VA
96. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V006)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject to, not significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1707; 38 U.S.C. 8127 to
8128
CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8; 48 CFR 817; 48 CFR 852.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics.
Statement of Need: The rulemaking would update the VAAR to current
FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it would correct
inconsistencies and removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it would also delete outdated material or
information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and
provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and
arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been reviewed
and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency
stakeholders. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and
revised only through rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; 48 CFR 1.301 to
1.304; 41 U.S.C. 1707; and 38 U.S.C. 8127 and 8128.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs, savings
and/or information collection burden costs/savings associated with this
rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and Warrant
Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202
382-2787, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ19
VA
97. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015-V011)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject to, not significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics.
Statement of Need: The rulemaking would update the VAAR to current
FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it would correct
inconsistencies and removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it would also delete outdated material or
information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and
provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and
arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been reviewed
and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency
stakeholders. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and
revised only through rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c);
and 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs or
savings associated with this rulemaking. The total estimated annual
cost to respondents as a result of this rulemaking is estimated to be
$565,000.00.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: LeStancia N. Spaght, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5331.
RIN: 2900-AQ20
[[Page 1775]]
VA
98. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015-V012)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject to, not significant.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 3304(a)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics.
Statement of Need: The rulemaking would update the VAAR to current
FAR titles, requirements, and definitions; it would correct
inconsistencies and removes redundancies and duplicate material already
covered by the FAR; it would also delete outdated material or
information and appropriately renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and
provisions where required to comport with FAR format, numbering and
arrangement. All amendments, revisions, and removals have been reviewed
and concurred with by an Integrated Product Team of agency
stakeholders. Codified acquisition regulations may be amended and
revised only through rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c);
41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 3304(a); 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no transfer costs, savings
and/or information collection burden costs/savings associated with this
rulemaking.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ21
VA
Final Rule Stage
99. Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State
Homes
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
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: This rulemaking would adopt as final, to include any
changes as a result of public comments, the proposed rule that
published on June 17, 2015, at 80 FR 34793. This rulemaking
reorganizes, updates, and clarifies State Veterans homes regulations,
authorizes greater flexibility in adult day health care programs, and
establishes regulations regarding domiciliary care, with clarifications
regarding the care that State homes must provide to veterans in
domiciliaries.
Statement of Need: The 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, the regulations governing per diem for
State home hospitals will be eliminated because there are no longer any
State home hospitals.
Summary of Legal Basis: VA pays per diem to State homes for three
types of care provided to eligible veterans: Nursing home care,
domiciliary care, and adult day health care. The statutory authority
for these payment programs is set forth at 38 U.S.C. 1741-43 and 1745.
Alternatives: VA considered the consequences of taking no action.
Under VA's State home per diem program, VA partners States to provide
nursing home, domiciliary, and adult day health services to Veterans.
The states and organizations that represent them have advised VA for
many years that certain of VA's regulations are outdated, confusing, do
not conform with best practices in extended care services, or are
otherwise in need of updating. In particular, they have repeatedly
requested that VA establish regulatory guidance about the domiciliary
care program, and change standards relating to medical supervision of
the Adult Day Health Care program. Taking no action would result in VA
being unable to make the needed changes to these programs to respond to
these concerns of stakeholders.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined that there are
both transfer savings and costs associated with this rulemaking. As a
result of the newly increased ADHC services, the government will spend
$700,162 less in transfers in FY 2017 and $4,531,095 less over a five
year period. The cost avoidance is based on a high end volume estimate.
This final rulemaking contains provisions constituting collections of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
to 3521). However, there are no increased and/or decreased PRA costs.
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........................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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.
[[Page 1776]]
RIN: 2900-AO88
VA
100. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001, Parts
803, 814 and 822)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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 and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This Proposed Rule
revises VAAR parts 803, 814 and 822, as well as affected parts 801,
802, 812 and 852.
Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes to streamline
the VAAR, implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and
removing internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles
concerning agency acquisition regulations, are removing 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), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 301-1.304.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined that there are
notransfer costs and/or savings associated with this rulemaking. VA is
merely adding existing and current regulatory requirements to these
VAAR parts and removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's
internal operation processes or procedures and placing that guidance in
the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Manual (VAAM).
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections
of information at 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and 852.214-70, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 to
3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are
associated with this rule.
The information collection requirements for 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and
852.214-70 are currently approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0593, and are
being proposed for removal and discontinuance. This will remove the
annual burden of 2 hours on the estimated 640 respondents annually and
have an information collection burden savings of $50.66.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/17/17 82 FR 22635
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/17/17 .......................
Final Action........................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP50
VA
101. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002, Parts
816 and 828)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 816; 48 CFR 828; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 1.3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
amend and update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased
increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance
internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and
align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative
requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates
the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite
certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten,
will publish it in the Federal Register. To minimize the number of
rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. This proposed rule
revises VAAR parts 816 and 828, as well as affected part 852.
Statement of Need: Included in the changes to streamline the VAAR,
implementing and supplementing the FAR where required, and removing
internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles concerning
agency acquisition regulations, are 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; removing the section, Letters of Availability, as
that procurement method is no longer in use in VA. Also, revising 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.
[[Page 1777]]
Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR
1.3.
Alternatives: The revised VAAR will have 47 parts, grouped into 19
packages. VA did consider grouping all of the parts into one package,
which would have resulted in one regulatory action. However, this
approach or alternative was tried several years ago and the project
ended up being terminated because of the complexity, time spent
correcting errors, legal review, and inconsistency amongst the
acquisition offices and other agencies. Another alternative would be to
do nothing, which would undermine VA's mission of simplifying the
acquisition process and making it easier for potential vendors to do
business with the VA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined there are no
transfer costs or savings associated with this rulemaking. VA is merely
adding existing and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and
removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal
operation processes or procedures and placing that guidance in the
Veterans Affairs Acquisition Manual (VAAM). This rule contains
provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 828.306
and 852.228-71, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). However, this regulation does not add any
new or proposes any new revisions for the collection of information.
The information collection requirements for 48 CFR 828.306 and 852.228-
71 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and were assigned the OMB control number of 2900-0590.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/13/17 82 FR 13418
NPRM; Correction.................... 04/04/17 82 FR 16332
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/12/17 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst
(003A2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AP82
VA
102. Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.1002; 38 CFR 17.1003; 38 CFR 17.1005.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plans to revise
its regulations concerning payment or reimbursement for emergency
treatment for non-service-connected conditions at non-VA facilities to
implement the requirements of a recent court decision.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking will clarify eligibility for
payment or reimbursement to include veterans who receive partial
payment from a health-plan contract for non-VA emergency treatment and
establishes a corresponding reimbursement methodology.
Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1725 authorizes VA to reimburse
veterans for the reasonable value of emergency treatment for non-
service connected conditions furnished in a non-VA facility, if certain
criteria are met. One requirement is that the veteran must be
personally liable for the emergency treatment. As originally enacted in
1999, the statute provided that a veteran is personally liable if the
veteran has no entitlement to care or services under a health-plan
contract, and no other contractual or legal recourse against a third
party that would, in part or in whole, extinguish such liability to the
provider. 38 U.S.C. 1725(b)(3)(B) and (C) (1999).
In Staab v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 50 (2016), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) reversed a Board of Veterans'
Appeals (the Board) decision denying a claim under section 1725. The
Board had applied 17.1002(f) to conclude that partial payment of the
emergency treatment by the veteran's health-plan contract barred VA
reimbursement. On appeal, the veteran challenged 17.1002(f) as
inconsistent with section 1725. The Court agreed, and in a precedential
decision, held invalid and set aside 17.1002(f) and remanded the case.
Alternatives: This rulemaking is a result of a court order
invalidating 38 CFR 17.1002(f). This rulemaking will amend the
pertinent VA regulations to comply with the holding of this Court
decision. It will make other amendments that are also needed to ensure
consistent application of its authority to reimburse Veterans for
emergency treatment in light of the court order.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has determined that there are
transfers costs associated with this rulemaking. Total transfer costs
are estimated to be from a low estimate of $45.0 million to a high
estimate of $97.3 million in FY 2018 and a low estimate of $234.4
million to a high estimate of $517.7 million over a five year period.
This rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
to 3521).
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Joseph Duran, Deputy Director (10NB3), Department
of Veterans Affairs, Chief Business Office, Veteran Health
Administration, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, CO 80209, Phone:
303 372-4629, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ08
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Priorities
Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the laws
enacted by Congress and signed by the President to protect people's
health and the environment. In carrying out these statutory mandates,
the EPA works to ensure that all Americans are protected from
significant risks to human health and the environment where they live,
learn and work; that national efforts to reduce environmental risk are
based on the best available scientific information; that Federal laws
protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and
effectively; that environmental protection is an integral consideration
in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic
growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and
international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in
establishing environmental policy; that all parts of society--
communities, individuals, businesses, and State, local and tribal
governments--have access to
[[Page 1778]]
accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing
human health and environmental risks; that environmental protection
contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse,
sustainable and economically productive; and, that the United States
plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the
global environment.
To accomplish its goals in the coming year, the EPA will use
regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs,
technical and compliance assistance and tools, and research and
educational initiatives to address its statutory responsibilities. All
of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to science,
law and transparency.
Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan
EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the
environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution
that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use, and the
communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on
some of our most important upcoming regulatory and deregulatory
actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains
information on a broader spectrum of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
Improving Air Quality
The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where
appropriate and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will work with
States to accurately measure air quality and ensure that more Americans
are living and working in areas that meet air quality standards. EPA
will continue to develop standards, as directed by the Clean Air Act,
for both mobile and stationary sources, to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, toxics, and other
pollutants.
Electric Utility Sector Greenhouse Gas Rules. The EPA will continue
its review of the Clean Power Plan suite of actions issued by the
previous administration affecting fossil fuel-fired electric generating
units (EGUs). On October 23, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule that
established first-ever standards for States to follow in developing
plans to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil
fuel-fired EGUs. On the same day, the EPA issued a final rule
establishing CO2 emissions standards for newly constructed, modified,
and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs. The Agency will reevaluate
whether these rules and alternative approaches are appropriately
grounded in EPA's statutory authority and consistent with the rule of
law. EPA will assess whether these rules or alternative approaches
would appropriately promote cooperative federalism and respect the
authority and powers that are reserved to the States; whether these
rules and alternative approaches affect the Administration's dual goals
of protecting public health and welfare, while also supporting economic
growth and job creation; and whether these rules or alternative
approaches appropriately maintain the diversity of reliable energy
resources and encourage the production of domestic energy sources to
achieve energy independence and security.
Light-duty Vehicle Mid-Term Evaluation. In 2012, as part of a joint
rulemaking, the EPA and the Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized separate sets
of standards under their respective statutory authorities. The EPA set
GHG emission standards (including standards for emissions of CO2, NOx,
methane, and air conditioning refrigerants) for Model Year (MY) 2017-
2025 passenger cars and light-trucks under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
202(a). NHTSA sets national CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) for MY 2017-2021 light-duty vehicles and issued
augural standards for MY 2022-2025. The 2012 joint rulemaking
establishing these standards included a regulatory requirement for the
EPA to conduct a Mid-Term Evaluation of the GHG standards established
for MY 2022-2025. In July 2016, the EPA, NHTSA, and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) released for public comment a jointly prepared
Draft Technical Assessment Report, which examined a range of issues
relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MY 2022-2025.
Under the 2012 joint rulemaking regulations, no later than April 1,
2018, the EPA Administrator must determine whether the GHG standards
established under the 2012 joint rule for MY 2022-2025 are appropriate
under CAA section 202(a) in light of the record then before the
Administrator. Given that CO2 makes up the vast majority of the GHGs
that the EPA regulates under section 202(a), and given that the
technologies available for regulating CO2 emissions do so by improving
fuel economy (which NHTSA regulates under EPCA), NHTSA's views
regarding their CAFE standards is an appropriate consideration in EPA's
determination regarding what GHG standards would be appropriate under
the CAA.
In accordance with the schedule set forth in the EPA's regulations,
the EPA intends to make a Final Determination regarding the
appropriateness of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April
1, 2018. As a part of this process, the EPA is examining a wide range
of factors, such as developments in powertrain technology, vehicle
electrification, light-weighting and vehicle safety impacts, the
penetration of fuel efficient technologies in the marketplace, consumer
acceptance of fuel efficient technologies, trends in fuel prices and
the vehicle fleet, employment impacts, and many others.
New Source Review and Title V Permitting Programs Reform. The CAA
establishes a number of permitting programs designed to carry out the
goals of the Act. The EPA directly implements some of these programs
through its regional offices, but most are carried out by States, local
agencies, and approved tribes. New Source Review (NSR) is a
preconstruction permitting program that ensures that the addition of
new and modified sources does not significantly degrade air quality.
NSR permits are legal documents that the facility owners/operators must
abide by. The permit specifies what construction is allowed, what
emission limits must be met, and often how the emissions source may be
operated. There are three types of NSR permits: (1) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) (CAA part C) permits, which are
required for new major sources or a major source making a major
modification in an attainment area; (2) Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) (CAA
part D) permits, which are required for new major sources or major
sources making a major modification in a nonattainment area; and (3)
Minor source permits (CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)).
CAA title V requires major sources of air pollutants, and certain
other sources, to obtain and operate in compliance with an operating
permit. Sources with these ``title V permits'' are required by the CAA
to certify compliance with the applicable requirements of their permits
at least annually. Regulations governing the Title V program are found
at 40 CFR part 70--State Operating Permit Programs.
To improve program effectiveness and reduce compliance burden, the
EPA will examine permitting programs reforms, such as the timely
issuance of permits, the facilitation of flexibility in permitting in a
nationally consistent manner (including but not limited to plant-wide
applicability limits (PALs) and alternative operating scenarios), and
the simplification of CAA permitting requirements by evaluating and
[[Page 1779]]
pursuing appropriate actions related to actual-to-projected-actual
applicability test, project netting rulemaking, debottlenecking, and
routine maintenance, repair, and replacement.
The EPA plans to complete the following actions: GHG Significant
Emission Rate rulemaking, which will provide a significance threshold
for GHG emissions to determine when a best available control technology
(BACT) analysis is required; improve the technical tools used to
streamline air quality modeling by issuing final PM2.5 and
Ozone Significant Impact Levels (SILs) Guidance, and final Modeled
Emissions Rates for Precursors (MERPs) Guidance; and title V Permitting
Program Petition Provisions Modification.
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Implementation
Revisions.
On October 1, 2015, the EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking
that revised the 8-hour primary and secondary Ozone NAAQS. The primary
standard was lowered from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a level of
0.070 ppm. The EPA also revised the secondary standard by making it
identical in all respects to the revised primary standard.
Subsequently, stakeholders have recommended that the EPA further
revise the exceptional event rule and associated guidance to allow for
greater state flexibility in flagging and excluding exceptional events
in the data set used to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
Exceptional events are unusual or naturally occurring events that can
affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable using techniques
that tribal, State, or local air agencies may implement in order to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. Exceptional events include wildfires,
stratospheric ozone intrusions, and volcanic and seismic activities. In
September 2016, the EPA finalized revisions to the Exceptional Events
rule to establish criteria and procedures for use in determining
exceptional events influenced air quality monitoring data.
In addition, the EPA intends to finalize necessary guidance (e.g.,
updated exceptional events guidance and guidance on Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) and Model Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs), as well
as to finalize its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation rule.
Improving Water Quality
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act and the Safer Drinking
Water Act, tremendous progress has been made toward ensuring that
Americans have safe water to drink and generally improving the quality
of the Nation's waters. While progress has been made, numerous
challenges remain in such areas as nutrient loadings, storm water
runoff, invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These
challenges can only be addressed by working with our State and tribal
partners to develop new and innovative strategies in addition to the
more traditional regulatory approaches. EPA plans to address the
following challenging issues in rulemakings.
Waters of the U.S. The Clean Water Act (CWA) seeks ``to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' Among other provisions, the CWA regulates the
discharge of pollutants into ``navigable waters,'' defined in the CWA
as ``the waters of the United States.'' The question of what is a
``water of the United States'' is one that has generated substantial
interest and uncertainty, especially among states, small businesses,
the agricultural communities, and environmental organizations, because
it relates to the extent of jurisdiction for Federal and relevant State
regulations.
The EPA and the Department of the Army have promulgated a series of
regulations defining ``waters of the United States.'' The scope of
``waters of the United States'' as defined by prior regulations has
been subject to litigation in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, most
recently in its 2006 Rapanos decision. Subsequently, the EPA and the
Corp of Engineers issued the ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters
of the United States.' '' (2015 WOTUS Rule.) On October 9, 2015, the
Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 WOTUS rule nationwide pending further
action of the court.
On July 27, 2017, the EPA and the Army issued a proposed rulemaking
to repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule and reinstate the regulations in place
prior to its issuance. As indicated in the proposed withdrawal, the
agencies are implementing clarifying changes in two steps to provide as
much certainty as possible as quickly as possible to the regulated
community and the public during the development of the ultimate
replacement rule. In Step 1, the agencies are seeking to establish the
legal status quo in the Code of Federal Regulations, by recodifying the
regulation that was in place prior to issuance of the 2015 WOTUS Rule.
Currently, these prior regulations are being implemented under the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's stay of the 2015 rule. In step
2, the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the
prior regulations and the approach in the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In
determining the possible new approaches, EPA and the Corps of Engineers
are considering a definition for ``navigable water'' in a manner
consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in the
Rapanos decision as instructed by Executive Order 13778, ``Restoring
the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the
`Waters of the United States' Rule.''
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. On November 3, 2015,
under the authority of the CWA, the EPA issued a final rule amending
the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (i.e., 2015 Steam
Electric ELG). The amendments addressed and contained limitations and
standards on various waste streams at steam electric power plants: fly
ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas mercury
control wastewater, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater,
gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. EPA recently
received two administrative petitions for reconsideration of the Steam
Electric ELG rule, one from the Utility Water Act Group (a petitioner
in the litigation) and one from the Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy. In a letter dated April 12, 2017, Administrator
Pruitt informed the petitioners of his decision that it is appropriate
and in the public interest to reconsider the rule. On April 25, 2017,
EPA published a Federal Register notice issuing an administrative stay
of the compliance dates in the rule that have not yet passed, pending
judicial review, under section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In addition, because Section 705 of the APA authorizes an Agency to
postpone the effective date of an action pending judicial review, EPA
issued a proposed rule on June 6, 2017 to postpone certain compliance
dates in the rule in the event that the litigation ends, and while the
Agency is undertaking reconsideration. On August 11, 2017 the
Administrator announced his decision to conduct a rulemaking to
potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for existing sources in the 2015 rule that apply
to bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
wastewater. In light of the reconsideration, EPA views that it is
appropriate to postpone impending deadlines as a temporary,
[[Page 1780]]
stopgap measure to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of resources
until it completes reconsideration of the 2015 rule. Thus, the
Administrator signed a final rule on September 9, 2017 postponing the
earliest compliance dates for the BAT effluent limitations and PSES for
bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater in the 2015 Rule, from
November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. This rule also withdraws EPA's
notification of Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates under Section
705 of the Administrative Procedures Act that was published on April
25, 2017.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper.
The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to drinking water
consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking water as a
result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires water
systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing materials.
Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take actions to
reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion control
treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. The LCR
was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in reducing
the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across the
country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint,
Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in
drinking water in other communities have underscored significant
challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule
structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after
public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the
rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords
systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion
control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases,
may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific
focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling
need to modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule--to
strengthen its public health protections and to clarify its
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily
enforceable. EPA is evaluating the costs and benefits of the potential
revisions and assessing whether the benefits justify the costs.
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.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Review. On April 17, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a final rule that establishes minimum national criteria
under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
for Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) landfills and surface impoundments
at active coal fired power plants. The rule regulates surface
impoundments and landfills that are actively accruing CCR, inactive
surface impoundments still containing CCRs, and water both at operating
power plants actively burning coal and those that burned coal in the
past but have transitioned to use of an alternate fuel source. The
requirements of the rule included: Location restrictions (floodplains,
wetlands, unstable areas, etc.); design criteria (liners, structural
integrity criteria); operating criteria (e.g., run-on and runoff
controls, inspections, fugitive dust controls); groundwater monitoring
and corrective action; closure and post-closure care (e.g., final cover
systems, 30 years of groundwater monitoring); and recordkeeping. At the
time the final CCR rule was issued under subtitle D of RCRA, the EPA
did not have the authority to enforce these criteria nor was the EPA
authorized to approve state permit programs, as is the case for
municipal solid waste landfills. Instead, the requirements of the CCR
rule are directly applicable to owner/operators of facilities where
disposal units are located and can be enforced via citizen suit or
under the ``imminent and substantial danger'' authority of RCRA section
7002. Owner/operators are required under the rule to place
notifications in their operating record, on their website, and in some
instances provide notice to the directors of appropriate State agencies
documenting the measures taken to comply with the rule.
The 2015 CCR Rule does not make a final Bevill regulatory
determination as to whether CCRs warrant regulation as a hazardous
waste under subtitle C of RCRA, but instead defers a final regulatory
determination until the EPA has more information on specific matters
influencing the risks posed by CCRs.
Subsequent to the promulgation of the 2015 CCR Rule, various
environmental and industry groups submitted to the DC Circuit seven
separate petitions for review, which were consolidated into a single
action. On June 16, 2016, in response to the EPA's unopposed motion for
voluntary remand of certain issues, the DC Circuit issued an order
remanding with vacatur to the EPA specific provisions of the rule for
further consideration, and remanding without vacatur other issues. The
EPA will consider the provisions remanded by the DC Circuit, as well as
the issues raised in the 2017 petition and other implementation issues
subsequently raised by stakeholders.
Reconsideration of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations
Under Clean Air Act. Both EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic
chemical accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and
worker fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other
community impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM)
standard (29 CFR part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled the Risk
Management Program (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.
On January 13, 2017, the EPA amended the 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.
Having considered the objections to the RMP Amendments rule raised
in various petitions, the EPA subsequently delayed the effective date
of the RMP Amendments rule to February 19, 2019, in order to give the
EPA time to reconsider the rule. Prior to the rule becoming effective,
the EPA plans to take comment on specific issues to be reconsidered and
consider possible regulatory actions to revise the RMP amendments.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities: Remand Rule. The EPA is
planning to modify the final rule on the disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act issued on April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302).
As a result of a settlement agreement on this final rule,
[[Page 1781]]
the EPA is addressing specific technical issues remanded by the court.
Further, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of
2016 established new statutory provisions applicable to CCR units,
including authorizing States to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-
approved permit program and authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule.
The EPA is considering amending certain performance standards in the
CCR rule to offer additional flexibility to State permitting
authorities with approved programs.
Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention. As a result
of a consent decree, the EPA is pursuing a rulemaking for the
prevention of hazardous substance discharges under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The CWA hazardous substances and their associated reportable
quantities (RQs) are identified in 40 CFR parts 116 and 117,
respectively. The EPA will assess the consequences of hazardous
substance discharges into the Nation's waters, and evaluate the costs
and benefits of potential preventive regulatory requirements for
facilities handling such substances.
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
EPA acts under 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), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-
Act (EPCRA), and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to protect
individuals, families, and the environment from potential risks of
pesticides and other chemicals. Using sound science as a compass, the
Agency will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these
authorities and highlights the following efforts underway in FY 2018:
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 and to workers who may
use chemicals daily as part of their jobs. If unreasonable risks are
found, EPA must then take steps to eliminate these risks. In June 2017,
EPA released scope documents for the initial ten chemicals for risk
evaluation under the amended law. These documents identify what uses of
the chemicals will be evaluated and how the risk evaluation will be
conducted. In FY 2018, EPA will publish and take public comment on
Problem Formulation documents which will refine the current scope of
the risk evaluations prior to publication the draft risk evaluations in
FY 2019.
EPA is also 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. In
June 2017, EPA promulgated final framework regulations addressing the
procedures that EPA will employ to prioritize chemicals under TSCA for
risk evaluation, as well as the procedures that EPA will follow to
evaluate the risks of chemicals procedures. EPA also promulgated a
final rule, per statutory requirements, to require chemical
manufacturers to report on TSCA chemicals they have manufactured
(including imported) within the past 10 years. Although the framework
regulations did not formally establish an approach to identify how
chemicals will be selected as candidates for low- or high-priority
designation, EPA will initiate a stakeholder process in FY 2018 with
the objective of identifying approaches for bringing TSCA chemicals
into the prioritization process. EPA will subsequently determine
whether to amend the procedural regulations in consideration of the
information obtained during the stakeholder process.
The new law also authorizes EPA cover a portion of its annual TSCA
program costs by collecting user fees from chemical manufacturers and
processors when they: Submit test data for EPA review, submit a
premanufacture notice for a new chemical or a notice of new use,
manufacture or process a chemical substance that is the subject of a
risk evaluation, or request that EPA conduct a chemical risk
evaluation. The proposal and finalization of a fees rule is an EPA
priority in FY 2018.
Finally, the new law requires EPA to promulgate by June 22, 2018 a
final rule that establishes reporting requirements to facilitate the
update of the inventory of the supply, trade, and use of mercury in the
United States. EPA will issue a proposed rule in early FY 2018 and
promulgate the final rule on or before the statutory deadline.
Reconsideration of Pesticide Safety Requirements. In FY 2017, EPA
solicited comments this spring on regulations that may be appropriate
for repeal, replacement, or modification in keeping with Executive
Order 13777, entitled ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' EPA
also held a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
in May 2017 that included session specifically devoted to receiving
public feedback on potential pesticide regulatory reform opportunities
for EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force to consider. Although many
commenters expressed their support for EPA's pesticide safety
regulations, EPA also received comments that suggested specific changes
to the January 4, 2017, Certification of Pesticide Applicators final
rule (amending the requirements at 40 CFR 171) and to the November 2,
2015, Worker Protection Standard final rule (which amended the
regulations at 40 CFR 170). EPA expects to publish separate Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public input on revisions to
these rules.
Annual Regulatory Costs
Section 3 of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
calls on agencies to ``identify for each regulation that increases
incremental cost, the offsetting regulations . . . and provide the
agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated
with each new regulation or repealed regulation.'' Each action in EPA's
fall 2017 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains
information about whether an action is anticipated to be ``regulatory''
or ``deregulatory'' in fulfilling this executive directive. Based on
current schedules and expectations regarding whether or not regulatory
actions are subject to Executive Order 12866 and hence Executive Order
13771, in fiscal year 2018, EPA is planning on finalizing over 30
deregulatory actions and fewer than 10 regulatory actions. EPA expects
the combined cost savings of its planned deregulatory actions to far
outweigh the costs of its planned regulatory actions.
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 Flexibility website
(https://www.epa.gov/reg-flex) at any time. This Plan includes the
following rules that may be of particular interest to small entities:
[[Page 1782]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
National Primary Drinking Water 2040-AF15
Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Prerule Stage
103. State Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
Existing Electric Utility Generating Units
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Clean Power Plan (CPP), 80 FR 64662 (October 23,
2015), was promulgated under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. 42
U.S.C. 7411. Due to concerns about the EPA's legal authority and
record, 27 states and a number of other parties sought judicial review
of the CPP in the D.C. Circuit. State of West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15-
1363 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). On February 9, 2016, the
Supreme Court stayed implementation of the CPP pending judicial review.
Following full merits briefing, oral argument was held before the D.C.
Circuit, sitting en banc, on September 27, 2016. That case is currently
pending in the D.C. Circuit. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued
Executive Order 13783 establishing a national policy in favor of energy
independence, economic growth and the rule of law. The Executive Order
specifically directed the EPA to review and, if appropriate, initiate
reconsideration proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the CPP. The
EPA has now conducted its review of the CPP, as directed by the
Executive Order, and has concluded that ``suspension, revision, or
rescission of [the CPP] may be appropriate'' on the basis of the
agency's reinterpretation of the statutory provisions underlying the
CPP. On October 10, 2017, the Administrator signed a Federal Register
notice proposing to repeal the CPP. In light of that proposed repeal,
the EPA will be signing, in the near future, an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking that will solicit information on systems of
emission reduction and provide notice of the agency's interest in
developing a rule similarly intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
from existing fossil-fueled electric utility generating units and to
solicit information for the agency to consider in developing such a
rule.
Statement of Need: The EPA has conducted its initial review of the
CPP, as directed by Executive Order 13783, and has concluded that
``suspension, revision, or rescission of [the CPP] may be appropriate''
on the basis of the agency's proposed reinterpretation of the statutory
provisions underlying the CPP. In light of the EPA's proposed repeal of
the CPP, the agency will issue an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking providing notice that the agency is considering whether it
is appropriate to propose a replacement rule similarly intended to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil-fueled electric
generating units and will solicit information on the development of
such a proposal. The EPA will fully consider all submitted information
before initiating a rulemaking effort.
Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 111, 42 U.S.C. 7411, provides
the legal framework and basis for a potential replacement rule that the
Agency is considering developing.
Alternatives: Not yet determined. If the EPA determines, based on
responses to the ANPRM, that it should undertake a rulemaking for a
replacement for the CPP, then the Agency will consider alternatives as
it develops a proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. If the EPA
determines, based on responses to the ANPRM, that it should undertake a
rulemaking for a replacement for the CPP, then the Agency will assess
the costs and benefits as it develops a proposed rule.
Risks: Not yet determined. If the EPA determines, based on
responses to the ANPRM, that it should undertake a rulemaking for a
replacement for the CPP, then the Agency will assess the risks to the
extent feasible as it develops a proposed rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 11/00/17 .......................
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
Agency Contact: Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Phone: 919 541-2968, Fax: 919 541-4991, Email: [email protected].
Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-2837, Fax: 919 541-4991, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT67
EPA--OAR
Proposed Rule Stage
104. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On June 3, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) finalized ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources'' (2016 OOOOa rule). The EPA
received five petitions for reconsideration on the 2016 OOOOa rule. By
a letter dated April 18, 2017, the Administrator announced the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the fugitive emission
requirements at well sites and compressor station sites in the 2016
OOOOa rule. On June 5, 2017, the EPA granted reconsideration of
additional requirements in that rule, specifically the well site
pneumatic pumps standards and the certification of closed vent system
design and capacity by a professional engineer. This action is the
reconsideration proposal.
Statement of Need: On June 3, 2016, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) finalized the ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission
Standards for New,
[[Page 1783]]
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources'' (2016 OOOOa rule). The EPA
received five petitions for reconsideration on the 2016 OOOOa rule. By
a letter dated April 18, 2017, the Administrator announced the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the fugitive emission
requirements at well sites and compressor station sites in the 2016
OOOOa rule. On June 5, 2017, the EPA granted reconsideration of
additional requirements in that rule, specifically the well site
pneumatic pumps standards and the certification of closed vent system
design and capacity by a professional engineer. This action is the
reconsideration proposal. This proposal will solicit comments and/or
information from the public regarding the Agency's proposed
requirements and options under consideration. The reconsidered rule is
anticipated to streamline certain areas of the rule in an effort to
reduce burden and improve implementation.
Summary of Legal Basis: The reconsideration of the 2016 OOOOa rule
is an exercise of the EPA's authority under section 307(d)(7)(B) and
section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Alternatives: For the 2016 OOOOa reconsideration proposal, we
anticipate soliciting comment on a number of provisions for which we
plan to provide alternatives, including the potential for alternatives
to certification of closed vent system design capacity by a
professional engineer and the potential for alternatives and improved
criteria for the alternative means of emissions limitation pathway for
affected facilities to use emerging technologies or existing state or
local programs to comply with the rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This reconsideration is anticipated
to be an economically significant action and will become effective 60
days following promulgation. This reconsideration is anticipated to
address controversial technical and legal issues.
Risks: We do not anticipate any risks to health related to this
action.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Extraction; 221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid
Extraction; 486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil; 486210
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
Agency Contact: Amy Hambrick, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143-
05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-0964, Fax: 919
541-0516, Email: [email protected].
Lisa Thompson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143-05, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-9775, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT54
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Proposed Rule Stage
105. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule;
Reconsideration of the Minimum Age Requirements
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Federal Insecticide Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 171.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA promulgated a final rule to amend the Certification
of Pesticide Applicators regulations at 40 CFR 171 on January 4, 2017
(82 FR 952). On June 2, 2017, EPA delayed the effective date of this
final rule (82 FR 25529) and initiated reconsideration proceedings in
accordance with the Presidential directives as expressed in the
memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and
Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'' and the
principles identified in Executive Order 13790, entitled ``Promoting
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America.'' In addition, per
Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited comments this spring on
regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement or
modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts. EPA
received comments specific to the certification rule. In consideration
of these comments, EPA will solicit public input on revisions to the
rule.
Statement of Need: Per Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited
comments this spring on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal,
replacement or modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda
efforts. EPA received comments suggesting specific changes to the final
rule to amend the Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulations at
40 CFR 171 (published on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952)) and are being
considered within the Regulatory Agenda efforts. In consideration of
these comments, EPA will solicit public input on revisions to the rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y of the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
Alternatives: Not yet determined. EPA will consider alternatives as
it develops the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. EPA will assess
the costs and benefits of the potential regulatory changes as it
develops the proposed rule.
Risks: Not yet determined. EPA will evaluate risks to the extent
feasible as it develops the proposed rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Docket #:TBD. TBD.
Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 111 Crop Production; 561710
Exterminating and Pest Control Services; 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers; 561730 Landscaping Services; 111421 Nursery and Tree
Production; 444220 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores;
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; 541690
Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services; 325320 Pesticide
and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 926140 Regulation of
Agricultural Marketing and Commodities; 541712 Research and Development
in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology);
115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 115210 Support
Activities for Animal Production; 115310 Support Activities for
Forestry; 321114 Wood Preservation.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
URL For Public Comments: TBD.
Agency Contact: Kevin Keaney, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Code 7506P, Washington, DC
[[Page 1784]]
20460, Phone: 703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2070-AJ20
RIN: 2070-AK37
EPA--OCSPP
106. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard;
Reconsideration of Several Requirements
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y Federal Insecticide Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA published a final rule to amend the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) regulations at 40 CFR 170 on November 2, 2015 (80 FR
67496). Per Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited comments this spring
on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement or
modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts. EPA
received comments suggesting specific changes to the 2015-revised WPS
requirements which are being considered within the Regulatory Agenda
efforts. In consideration of those comments, EPA will solicit public
input on revisions to the rule.
Statement of Need: Per Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited
comments this spring on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal,
replacement or modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda
efforts. EPA received comments suggesting specific changes to the 2015-
revised WPS requirements and are being considered within the Regulatory
Agenda efforts. In consideration of those comments, EPA will solicit
public input on revisions to the rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y of the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Alternatives: Not yet determined. EPA will consider alternatives as
it develops the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. If EPA
determines that the existing rule should be amended based on responses
to the ANPRM, EPA will assess the costs and benefits of the potential
regulatory changes as it develops a proposed rule.
Risks: Not yet determined. EPA will assess the costs and benefits
of the potential regulatory changes as it develops the proposed rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Docket #:TBD. None.
Sectors Affected: 111 Crop Production; 813312 Environment,
Conservation and Wildlife Organizations; 115115 Farm Labor Contractors
and Crew Leaders; 113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest
Products; 813311 Human Rights Organizations; 813930 Labor Unions and
Similar Labor Organizations; 111421 Nursery and Tree Production; 541690
Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services; 813319 Other Social
Advocacy Organizations; 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural
Chemical Manufacturing; 115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except
Cotton Ginning); 541712 Research and Development in the Physical,
Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology); 115112 Soil
Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 11511 Support Activities for
Crop Production; 115310 Support Activities for Forestry; 113110 Timber
Tract Operations.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
URL For Public Comments: TBD.
Agency Contact: Nancy Fitz, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Mail Code 7506P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 305-7385, Fax:
703 308-3259, Email: [email protected].
Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK43
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Proposed Rule Stage
107. Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)
CFR Citation: Undetermined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 16, 2018, Sign by no later
than June 16, 2018 & within 15 days thereafter transmit to the Federal
Register.
Final, Judicial, August 29, 2019, Sign by no later than 14 months
after publication of NPRM (currently tentative August 29, 2019) and
within 15 days transmit to FR.
Abstract: As a result of a consent decree, the EPA is embarking on
a rulemaking for the prevention of hazardous substance discharges under
section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 311(j)(1)(C)
reads, in part: ``. . . as soon as practicable after October 18, 1972,
and from time to time thereafter, the President shall issue regulations
. . . establishing procedures, methods, and equipment and other
requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of . . . hazardous
substances from . . . onshore facilities . . . and to contain such
discharges . . .'' The CWA hazardous substances and their associated
reportable quantities (RQs) are identified in 40 CFR parts 116 and 117,
respectively. The EPA will assess the consequences of hazardous
substance discharges into the nation's waters, and evaluate the costs
and benefits of potential preventive regulatory requirements for
facilities handling such substances.
Statement of Need: Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) reads, in part: ``. . . as soon as practicable after October 18,
1972, and from time to time thereafter, the President shall issue
regulations . . . establishing procedures, methods, and equipment and
other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of . . .
hazardous substances from . . . onshore facilities . . . and to contain
such discharges . . .''.
Summary of Legal Basis: In 2015, the EPA was sued for failure to
conduct a rulemaking for chemicals under the CWA 311(j)(1)(C). This
litigation was settled and a consent decree was file with the court in
February 2016 (Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical
Policy Reform v. U.S. EPA). The EPA is conducting this rulemaking in
accordance with the consent decree and intends to issue a proposed rule
by June 2018.
Alternatives: The EPA is in the process of evaluating options and
alternatives to fulfill its obligations under the CWA 311(j)(1)(C) and
the consent decree.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This information is not yet
available.
Risks: This information has yet to be determined.
Timetable:
[[Page 1785]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 72 Accommodation and Food Services; 924
Administration of Environmental Quality Programs; 56 Administrative and
Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; 312 Beverage and
Tobacco Product Manufacturing; 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 111 Crop
Production; 61 Educational Services; 311 Food Manufacturing; 316
Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing; 423 Merchant Wholesalers,
Durable Goods; 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 212 Mining
(except Oil and Gas); 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing;
211 Oil and Gas Extraction; 322 Paper Manufacturing; 324 Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing; 326 Plastics and Rubber Products
Manufacturing; 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 44-
45 Retail Trade; 115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry;
313 Textile Mills; 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing; 221 Utilities;
493 Warehousing and Storage; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
Agency Contact: Stacey Yonce, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Mail Code 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2288, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG87
EPA--OLEM
108. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues From Electric Utilities: Remand Rule
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906 and 6907; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 42
U.S.C. 6944; 42 U.S.C. 6945(c)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257.
Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, June 14, 2019, Issue a final rule
3 years after settlement agreement date (6/14/2016).
Abstract: The EPA is publishing a proposed rule to modify the final
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Rule, published April 17,
2015. Issues covered by this proposal will include the height
limitation of the vegetative slopes of dikes; the type and magnitude of
non-groundwater releases that would require a facility to comply with
some or all of the corrective action procedures set forth in the final
CCR rule; and adding boron to the list of contaminants in Appendix IV
of the final CCR rule that trigger the corrective action requirements
under the final rule. These proposed changes would address specific
technical issues consistent with a settlement agreement to resolve
issues raised in litigation of the final CCR rule. Further, the Agency
is considering provisions that establish alternative performance
standards for owners and operators of CCR units located in states that
have approved CCR permit programs, as well as other potential revisions
based on comments received since the date of the final CCR rule and
petitions for rulemaking that were granted on September 13, 2017.
Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, the EPA finalized national
regulations to regulate the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (2015 CCR final rule). The rule was challenged by
several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities
and a coalition of public interest environmental organizations. Several
of the claims, a subset of the provisions challenged by the industry
and environmental petitioners, were settled. As part of that
settlement, on April 18, 2016, the EPA requested the court to remand
these claims back to the Agency. On June 16, 2016, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA's
motion. One claim was the subject of a rulemaking completed on August
5, 2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule includes the remaining claims
that were remanded back to the EPA.
In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory
provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing states to
implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and
authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule. On September 13, 2017, EPA
granted separate petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Utilities
Solid Waste Activities group and AEP Puerto Rico LP. In light of the
legislation and petitions for rulemaking, the EPA is considering making
additional changes to the CCR rule to provide as much flexibility to
the state programs as possible, consistent with the WIIN Act. The
rulemaking also includes proposed amendments related to implementation
of the WIIN Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: As part of the settlement discussed above,
the EPA committed to make best efforts to take final action on the
remaining claims by June 14, 2019.
Alternatives: According to the terms of the settlement agreement
discussed above, the Agency must provide public notice and opportunity
for comment on these issues. Each of these settlement-related
amendments is fairly narrow in scope and we have not identified any
significant alternatives for analysis. Regarding other potential
amendments, one alternative would be not to include these additional
issues in the CCR Remand proposal since they are not subject to a
deadline.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Although cost and benefit estimates
are not available at this time, it is possible to speak to the general
impact of the proposed rule amendments on regulated entities. The
general impact of the rule should be considered in relation to the 2015
CCR final rule, which it would amend. Considered in that way, all but
one of the settlement-related amendments would result in cost savings
to regulated entities. The impacts of one settlement-related amendment
are already included in the analysis of the 2015 CCR final rule's costs
and benefits, and thus will not result in a change. Regarding the WIIN
Act implementation issues, the proposed amendments are estimated to
result in efficiencies in the implementation of the CCR rule, which
would lead to additional cost savings.
Risks: As compared with the risks to human health and the
environment that were presented in the 2015 CCR final rule, the
proposed amendments discussed in this action are not expected to impact
the overall conclusions in the 2015 final rule. As a result, the Agency
believes these amendments, if finalized as proposed, would be
protective of human health and the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.
Agency Contact: Mary Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Mail Code 5304P,
[[Page 1786]]
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8453, Email: [email protected].
Alexander Livnat, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land
and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7251, Fax: 703 605-0595, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG88
EPA--OLEM
109. Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk
Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Reconsideration of
Amendments
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in
the Federal Register on January 13, 2017 a final rule to amend the Risk
Management Program regulations under the Clean Air Act. Prior to the
rule becoming effective, the EPA is considering petitions for
reconsideration of this final rule; planning to take comment on
specific issues to be reconsidered and considering possible regulatory
actions to revise the Risk Management Program amendments.
Statement of Need: On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule
amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions
under section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)).
The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs,
including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response
preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other
changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the
underlying rules. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the ``Risk
Management Program Amendments.'' In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a
group known as the ``RMP Coalition,'' submitted a petition (``RMP
Coalition Petition'') for reconsideration of the Risk Management
Program (RMP) Amendments, as provided for in the CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)). On March 13, 2017, the Chemical
Safety Advocacy Group (``CSAG'') also submitted a petition for
reconsideration and stay. On March 14, 2017, the EPA received a third
petition for reconsideration and stay from the State of Louisiana,
joined by Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The petitions from CSAG
and the 11 states also requested that the EPA delay the various
compliance dates of the RMP Amendments. Having considered the
objections raised in these petitions, the Administrator determined that
the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the
objections. The EPA subsequently published proposed and final rules to
delay the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule to February 19,
2019, in order to give the EPA time to conduct a reconsideration
proceeding. Prior to the RMP Amendment rule becoming effective, the EPA
is planning to take comment on specific issues to be reconsidered and
considering possible regulatory actions to revise the RMP amendments.
Summary of Legal Basis: The CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) authorizes the
EPA Administrator to promulgate accidental release prevention,
detection, and correction requirements, which may include monitoring,
record keeping, reporting, training, vapor recovery, secondary
containment, and other design, equipment, work practice, and
operational requirements. The CAA section 112(r)(7)(B) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate 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 will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking
that will provide the RMP Coalition, CSAG, the states, and the public
an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the petitions that
meet the standard of the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), as well as any other
matter we believe will benefit from additional comment.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The RMP Reconsideration rule may
result in an overall burden reduction. In reconsidering the RMP
Amendments, in addition to considering the issues raised by
petitioners, EPA must also consider the impacts of recent Executive
Orders that require agencies to consider options for regulatory
reduction and regulatory reform (i.e., Executive Order 13771 on
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs of January 30,
2017, Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda
of February 24, 2017, and Executive Order 13783 on Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth). If EPA were to finalize
modifications resulting in regulatory reduction consistent with these
Executive orders, the reconsideration rule could result in a burden
reduction of some or all of the total costs associated with the RMP
Amendments final rule (i.e., up to $131.2 million annualized, 3 percent
discount rate and $131.8 million annualized, 7 percent discount rate).
Risks: The RMP rule addresses risks from accidental air releases of
chemicals that could cause acute harm to human health and the
environment. According to the EPA's RMP National Database,
approximately 150 such accidental releases occur each year in the U.S.
The average annual cost of RMP accidents is approximately $275 million.
However, this monetized value of accident impacts omits many important
categories of accident impacts including lost productivity, the costs
of emergency response, transaction costs, property value impacts in the
surrounding community, and environmental impacts.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
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.
[[Page 1787]]
Agency Contact: Jim Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail
Code 5104A, 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, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG95
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Proposed Rule Stage
110. 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.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to drinking
water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking water as a
result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires water
systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing materials.
Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take actions to
reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion control
treatment, public education and lead service line replacement. The LCR
was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in reducing
the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across the
country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint,
Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in
drinking water in other communities, have underscored significant
challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule
structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after
public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the
rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords
systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion
control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases,
may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific
focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling
need to modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule--to
strengthen its public health protections and to clarify its
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily
enforceable. EPA is evaluating the costs and benefits of the potential
revisions and assessing whether the benefits justify the costs.
Statement of Need: The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to
drinking water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking
water as a result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires
water systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing
materials. Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take
actions to reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion
control treatment, public education and lead service line replacement.
The LCR was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in
reducing the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across
the country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint,
Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in
drinking water in other communities, have underscored significant
challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule
structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after
public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the
rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords
systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion
control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases,
may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific
focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling
need to modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule--to
strengthen its public health protections and to clarify its
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily
enforceable.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) includes a general authority for
EPA to establish maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and national
primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs). The first NPDWR for Lead
and Copper was issued in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991). Section
1412(b)(9) of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA, at least
every six years, to review and revise, as appropriate, each national
primary drinking water regulation. Any revision of a national primary
drinking water regulation must be promulgated in accordance with
Section 1412, except that each revision must maintain, or provide for
greater protection of the health of persons. This rulemaking will
revise EPA's existing Lead and Copper Rule pursuant to Section
1412(b)(9). EPA's goal for the LCR revisions is to improve the
effectiveness of public health protections while maintaining a rule
that can be implemented in a cost effective manner by the 68,000
drinking water systems that are covered by the rule.
Alternatives: TBD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: Lead can cause serious health problems if too much enters
your body from drinking water or other sources. It can cause damage to
the brain and kidneys, and can interfere with the production of red
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of your body. The greatest
risk of lead exposure is to infants, young children, and pregnant
women. Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the brain with
lowered IQ in children. Adults with kidney problems and high blood
pressure can be affected by low levels of lead more than healthy
adults. Lead is stored in the bones, and it can be released later in
life. During pregnancy, the child receives lead from the mother's
bones, which may affect brain development.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/20 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation
Systems.
URL For More Information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/index.cfm.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 4607M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4880,
Email: [email protected].
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8354,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF15
[[Page 1788]]
EPA--OW
111. Second Action: Definition of `Waters of the United States'
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR parts 110; 112; 116; 117; 122; 230; 232; 300;
302; and 40.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
the Army (``the agencies'') are publishing this proposed rule as a
second step in a comprehensive, two-step process to revise the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' consistent with the
Executive Order signed on February 28, 2017. This follows the first
step which is seeking to recodify the preexisting definition of
``waters of the United States.'' In this second step, the agencies are
conducting a substantive re-evaluation and revision of the definition
of ``waters of the United States'' in accordance with Executive Order
13778, Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by
Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.''
Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order entitled Restoring the Rule of
Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the Waters of the
United States' Rule. To meet the objectives of the E.O., the EPA and
Department of the Army (agencies) are engaged in an expeditious two-
step rulemaking process. This action follows the first step which is
seeking to recodify the pre-existing definition of waters of the United
States. In this second step, the agencies are conducting a
reconsideration of the definition of waters of the United States
consistent with the Executive Order.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.
Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed at this
time. The Executive order. directs the agencies to consider a defining
``waters of the United States'' consistent with Justice Scalia's
opinion in Rapanos.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An economic analysis analyzing
anticipated costs and benefits will be developed for the rulemaking at
the time of proposal.
Risks: The agencies will be able to analyze the risks of the
proposed rulemaking once policy decisions have been made.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Donna Downing, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AF75
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Final Rule Stage
112. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2018 and Biomass Based Diesel
Volume (BBD) for 2019
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
PL 104-4.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 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 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, 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 requires applicable volumes to be
set no later than 14 months prior to the year for which the
requirements would apply.
Statement of Need: 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. 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 requires applicable volumes to be set
no later than 14 months prior to the year for which the requirements
would apply.
Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 211(o).
Alternatives: Volume Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard
Program were proposed for 2018 and for Biomass Based Diesel for 2019.
The Proposal also sought comments on alternative volumes, both lower or
higher, than what the Agency proposed.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits of this
rulemaking are highly complex given the nature of the program and the
standards being categorically nested under a total volume standard.
Costs were based on a number of illustrative assumptions. Illustrative
analyses of the four separate hypothetical scenarios are included in
the proposed rulemaking. Illustrative Costs for the proposed 40 million
gallon reduction in the advanced biofuel category ranged from: (1)
Soybean Biodiesel Scenario--$(45)-$(33) million dollars; Brazilian
Sugarcane Ethanol Scenario--$(61)-(23) million dollars; CNG/LNG Biogas
Scenario--$(2)--2 million dollars; Corn Fiber Derived Ethanol
Scenario--$(70)--$(36) million Dollars.
Risks: This is a statutory rulemaking. Environmental assessments
are primarily addressed under another section of the CAA (Section 204).
Refer to last 204 report and/or the original RIA under the 2010
rulemaking for these assessments.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/21/17 82 FR 34206
Notice.............................. 10/04/17 82 FR 46174
NODA Comment Period End............. 10/19/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
[[Page 1789]]
Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6401A, Washington, DC
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT04
EPA--OAR
113. Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On April 4, 2017, the EPA announced it is reviewing the
Clean Power Plan (CPP), found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUU. This
action proposes to withdraw the CPP on grounds that it exceeds the
statutory authority provided under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Statement of Need: The EPA has conducted its initial review of the
CPP, as directed by Executive Order 13783, and has concluded that
suspension, revision, or rescission of [the CPP] may be appropriate on
the basis of the agency's proposed reinterpretation of the statutory
provisions underlying the CPP.
Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA proposes to return to a reading of
CAA section 111(a)(1) (and its constituent term, best system of
emission reduction) as being limited to emission reduction measures
that can be applied to or at an individual stationary source. The EPA
believes that this interpretation is consistent with the CAA's text,
context, structure, purpose, and legislative history, as well as with
the Agency's historical understanding and exercise of its statutory
authority.
Alternatives: Not yet determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Repealing the CPP could lead to up
to $33 billion dollars in avoided compliance costs in 2030. EPA
presents a wide range of analysis scenarios meant to address numerous
concerns and uncertainties associated with the previous approach to
analyzing costs and benefits in the Clean Power Plan.
Risks: The CPP as originally finalized raised concerns that it
would necessitate changes to a state's energy policy, such as a grid-
wide shift from coal-fired to natural gas-fired generation, and from
fossil fuel-fired generation to renewable generation and that it
exceeded the agency's statutory authority.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/16/17 82 FR 48035
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/15/17 .......................
Notice.............................. 11/08/17 82 FR 51787
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Peter Tsirigotis, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D205-
01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 888 627-7764, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT55
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Final Rule Stage
114. Financial Responsibility Requirements Under Cercla Section 108(B)
For Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 320.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2016, Court Order:
NPRM.
Final, Judicial, December 1, 2017, Court Order: Final.
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. In 2009, the Agency published a notice that identified
classes of facilities within the hardrock mining industry as those for
which financial responsibility requirements will be first developed.
Statement of Need: EPA is under court order to sign for publication
by December 1, 2017 a notice of its final action on such regulations
under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 108(b) of CERCLA establishes
certain regulatory authorities concerning financial responsibility
requirements. Specifically, the statutory language addresses the
promulgation of regulations that would 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. The Administrator shall establish the level of financial
responsibility to protect against the level of risk that the
Administrator in his discretion believes is appropriate based on the
payment experience of the Fund, commercial insurers, courts settlements
and judgments, and voluntary claims satisfactions.
Alternatives: The EPA received public comments on the need for
final CERCLA financial responsibility requirements as outlined in the
proposed rule in light of existing financial responsibility
requirements imposed by state and federal regulatory authorities, as
well as comments on the methods for calculating financial
responsibility and the availability of financial responsibility
instruments.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA would expect that the
primary costs of a final rule to be in the form of commissions and fees
paid by facilities for procuring required financial instruments. The
EPA would also expect to incur administrative and oversight costs for
implementing a final rule.
Risks: EPA's CERCLA section 108(b) rules are intended to address
the risks associated with the production, transportation, treatment,
storage or disposal of hazardous substances.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 07/28/09 74 FR 37213
NPRM................................ 01/11/17 82 FR 3388
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 03/02/17 82 FR 12333
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/17 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: Docket #: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: https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781&fp=true&ns=true.
Agency Contact: Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Mail Code 5304P,
[[Page 1790]]
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057, Email:
[email protected].
Scott Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5305P,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8621, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG61
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Final Rule Stage
115. Definition of ``Waters of the United States''--Recodification of
Pre-Existing Rule
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 112; 40 CFR 116 and 117; 40 CFR
122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
the Army (``the agencies'') published this proposed rule to initiate
the first step in a comprehensive, two-step process to revise the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' consistent with the
Executive Order signed on February 28, 2017.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order entitled Restoring the Rule of
Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the Waters of the
United States' Rule. To meet the objectives of the E.O., the agencies
are engaged in a comprehensive two-step rulemaking process. Under the
first step of this rulemaking process, the agencies are seeking to
recodify the regulatory text that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean
Water Rule and that is currently in place as a result of the stay
ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.
Alternatives: In this first step, the agencies have proposed as an
interim action to repeal the 2015 definition of waters of the United
States and codify the legal status quo that is being implemented now
under the Sixth Circuit stay of the 2015 definition of waters of the
United States and that was in place for decades prior to the 2015 rule.
This rule would result in the recodification of what is in place under
the Court stay (i.e., the regulation as it existed prior to the 2015
rule) so that the rules are clear and certain while agencies engage in
a second rulemaking to reconsider the definition. As a result, the
agencies did not propose any alternatives for this proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The agencies estimated the avoided
costs and forgone benefits of repealing the 2015 rule. Annual avoided
costs range from $162.2 to $313.9 million for the low end scenario and
$242.4 to $476.2 million for the high end scenario (at 2016 price
levels). All of the forgone benefit categories were not fully
quantified in the economic analysis for the proposed rule (noted with
$B). The annual forgone benefits range from $33.6 + $B to $44.5 to $B
for the low end scenario and $55.0 + $B to $72.8 + $B in the high-end
scenario. The economic analysis can be found in the docket for the
proposed rulemaking.
Risks: Because the proposed rule maintains the status quo, there
are no environmental or health risks associated with this effort.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/27/17 82 FR 34899
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 08/22/17 82 FR 39712
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/proposed-rule-definition-waters-united-states-recodification-pre-existing-rules.
URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203.
Agency Contact: Donna Downing, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF74
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,
Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in
employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the
following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race,
color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal
wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under
similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits
employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and V
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501
and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment
discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination
based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of
genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights
Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state and local
government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The EEOC has authority to issue legislative regulations under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and Title II of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
EEOC's authority to issue legislative regulations is limited to
procedural, record keeping, and reporting matters.
Three items are identified in this Regulatory Plan. On August 22,
2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the
EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the ADA and GINA related to
incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans. See AARP v. EEOC,
Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance with the
court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take actions to cure defects
in the rules. In addition, the EEOC's Fall 2017 Regulatory Agenda
contains a longstanding item titled ``Federal Sector Equal Employment
[[Page 1791]]
Opportunity Process.'' In July 2012, the Commission published a final
rule containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal
sector EEO complaint process, and indicated that the rule was the
Commission's initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO
process. On February 6, 2015, the Commission issued an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that sought public input
on additional issues associated with the Federal sector EEO process.
The EEOC's Fall 2017 Regulatory Agenda states that an NPRM is expected
to be issued by March 2018. Based on the information currently
available, we anticipate that most of the changes will have no cost and
will benefit users of the process by correcting or clarifying the
requirements. Any cost that might result would only be borne by the
Federal Government. Furthermore, any revisions would not affect risks
to public health, safety, or the environment.
Executive Order 13771 Statement
EEOC does not anticipate finalizing any regulatory or deregulatory
actions subject to Executive Order 13771 in the next 12 months. One
significant rule--``Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
Process''--falls within an exception for regulations that affect only
other Federal agencies and are related to personnel matters, this
matter is at the proposed rule stage. In addition, the two rules
related to wellness programs under the ADA and GINA are significant
under E.O. 12866, but are not expected to be finalized in the next 12
months.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the
Commission.
EEOC
Proposed Rule Stage
116. Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d); 29 U.S.C. 633a; 29 U.S.C. 791;
29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16; E.O. 10577; E.O. 11222; E.O. 11478;
E.O. 12106; Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(e)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In July 2012, the Commission published a final rule
containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal sector
EEO complaint process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. On
February 6, 2015, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that sought public input on additional
issues associated with the Federal sector EEO process.
Statement of Need: Any proposals contained in an NPRM would be
aimed at making the process more fair and efficient.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
authorizes EEOC ``to issue such rules, regulations, orders, and
instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its
responsibilities under . . . section [717].'' 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b).
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, we anticipate that most of the changes will have no cost and
will benefit users of the process by correcting or clarifying the
requirements. Any cost that might result would only be borne by the
Federal Government.
Risks: Any proposed revisions would not affect risks to the public
health, safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/06/15 80 FR 6669
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 04/07/15
NPRM................................ 03/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Kathleen Oram, Acting Assistant Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4681, Fax: 202 663-6034, Email:
[email protected].
Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4666, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3046-AB00
EEOC
117. Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule amends the regulations to implement the equal
employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to
address the interaction between title I of the ADA and inducements and/
or penalties as part of wellness programs offered by employers. On
August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the ADA related to
incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans. See AARP v. EEOC,
Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance with the
court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take actions to cure defects
in the rule. The final rule was published on May 17, 2016 (81 FR 31125)
and completed in the fall 2016 agenda as RIN 3046-AB01.
Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1630.14(d) is needed in
accordance with the District Court's ruling noted above.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires the EEOC to issue
regulations implementing title I of the Act. The EEOC initially issued
regulations in 1991 on the law's requirements and prohibited practices
with respect to employment and issued amended regulations in 2011 to
conform to changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
The EEOC again issued regulations in May 2016 to address the
interaction between title I of the ADA and wellness programs. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to
reconsider these regulations in August 2017. These new revisions are
based on the court's order, as well as the statutory requirement to
issue regulations to implement title I of the ADA.
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
the public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes
will benefit entities covered by
[[Page 1792]]
title I of the ADA by clarifying employers' obligations under the ADA.
Risks: The rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers.
The rule does not address risks to public safety or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/00/18
Final Action........................ 10/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-7031, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Previously reported as 3046-AB01.
RIN: 3046-AB10
EEOC
118. Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule amends the regulations on the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address inducements to
employees' spouses or other family members who respond to questions
about their current or past medical conditions on health risk
assessments (HRA). On August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations
under GINA related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans.
See AARP v. EEOC, Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In
accordance with the court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take
actions to cure defects in the rule. The final rule was published on
May 17, 2016 (81 FR 31143) and completed in the fall 2016 agenda as RIN
3046-AB02.
Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1635.8 is needed in
accordance with the District Court's ruling noted above.
Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10,
requires the EEOC to issue regulations implementing title II of the
Act. The EEOC issued regulations on November 9, 2010. In May 2016, the
EEOC issued an amendment to the regulations which dealt with the
interaction between title II of GINA and wellness programs. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to
reconsider these regulations in August 2017. These new revisions are
based on the court order, as well as the statutory requirement.
Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by
public commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes
will benefit entities covered by title II of GINA by clarifying
employers' obligations under GINA.
Risks: The rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers.
The rule does not address risks to public safety or the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/00/18
Final Action........................ 10/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M
Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington,
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4516, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 3046-AB02
RIN: 3046-AB11
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Regulatory Plan--October 2017
The mission of GSA is to deliver the best value in real estate,
acquisition, and technology services to government and the American
people by:
Providing centralized procurement services for the federal
government by offering billions of dollars of products, services, and
facilities that federal agencies need to serve the public.
Helping federal agencies build and acquire office space,
products and other workspace services.
Overseeing the preservation of historic federal
properties.
Creating and maintaining Governmentwide policies for
travel and property management to promote efficient government
operations.
Providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to
the U.S. military.
Providing state and local governments with law enforcement
equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster recovery
products and services.
Offering free access to and information about government
programs with the following websites:
USA.gov, official portal to federal government
information;
gobiernoUSA.gov, Spanish counterpart of USA.gov;
publications.USA.gov, Federal Citizen Information Center;
Consumer protection on USA.gov, consumer action website;
Consumer protection in Spanish on goviernoUSA.gov;
kids.gov, official kids portal for the U.S. government.
Providing free telephone assistance through the National
Contact Center at 800-FED-INFO, with email and online assistance to the
public.
GSA's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive,
efficient, and transparent.
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required GSA to appoint a Regulatory Reform
Officer to
[[Page 1793]]
oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and
policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to
review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive
Order 12866.
In addition, GSA implements and supplements FAR requirements
through 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
established under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 585, et seq. The GSAR
implements contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that
control the relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective
contractors.
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (2011), the GSA retrospective review
and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.
Listed below are the important rules planned that require a
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis or are considered significant and/
or highly visible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Identifier No. Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ64.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
G506; Construction Manager as
Constructor Contracting
3090-AJ84.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G511; Information and Information
Systems Security
3090-AJ85.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G515; Cyber Incident Reporting
3090-AJ88.......................... Federal Permitting Improvement
Steering Council (FPISC); FPISC
Case 2017-001; Fees for
Governance, Oversight, and
Processing of Environmental
Reviews and Authorizations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ41.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013-
G502; Federal Supply Schedule
Contracting (Administrative
Changes)
3090-AJ63.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
G503; Construction Contract
Administration
3090-AJ65.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
G505; Architect-Engineer Selection
Procedures
3090-AJ67.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
G512; Unenforceable Commercial
Supplier Agreement Terms
3090-AJ75.......................... General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR 2016-G506; Federal Supply
Schedule, Order-Level Materials
3090-AJ82.......................... General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2015-G502; Submission
and Distribution of Federal Supply
Schedules (FSS) Price Lists
3090-AJ83.......................... General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2016-G509; Updates to
the Issuance of GSA's Acquisition
Policy
3090-AJ86.......................... General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR 2017-G502; Transition to
Small Business Administration
(SBA) Mentor-Portege Program
3090-AJ87.......................... General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR 2017-G503; Remove Duplicative
Responsibility Determination
Guidance
3090-AJ89.......................... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
FTR Case 2017-301; Transportation
Network Companies (TNC),
Innovative Mobility Technology
Companies, and Reporting Travel,
Transportation, and Relocation
Costs
3090-AJ90.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2017-
G506; Clause and Provision
Designation Corrections
3090-AJ91.......................... General Services Administration
Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2017-
G507, Federal Supply Schedule
(FSS) Contractor Teaming
Arrangements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ69.......................... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
FTR Case 2016-301, Clarification
of Payment In Kind for Speakers at
Meetings and Conferences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 29, 2017.
Allison Fahrenkopf Brigati,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aim is to
increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that
contains it and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic
organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (a federally funded research and development
center), and several component installations which report to Center
Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and
control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters located in
Washington, DC.
NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2014
Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to ``Drive advances in science,
technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge,
education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the
Earth.'' The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, (available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2014 NASA Strategic Plan.pdf), guides NASA's
program activities through a framework of the following three strategic
goals:
[[Page 1794]]
Strategic Goal 1: Expand the frontiers of knowledge,
capability, and opportunity in space.
Strategic Goal 2: Advance understanding of Earth and
develop technologies to improve the quality of life on our home planet.
Strategic Goal 3: Serve the American public and accomplish
our mission by effectively managing our people, technical capabilities,
and infrastructure.
In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering
capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and
benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and
technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.
NASA's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive,
efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive Order 13609,
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (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.
NASA, along with the Departments of State and Commerce and Defense,
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. NASA has also 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 concerns.
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required NASA to appoint a Regulatory Reform
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force)
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law. NASA is doing this work primarily
through its work as a signatory to Federal Acquisition Regulatory
Council.
The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1, contains procurement regulations that
apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1302
and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly prepared, issued, and maintained
by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and
the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under
their several statutory authorities.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive
Order 12866.
In addition, NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements
through the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. As a result
of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations of the FAR Task
Force and internal Agency discussions, NASA has identified priority
regulatory and deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by
eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
The Agency has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious
acquisition, health, and personnel and readiness risks as discussed
below.
NASA will revise the NASA FAR Supplement to clarify policy for
applying Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirements to
contracts, task and delivery orders and to revise the EVMS dollar
threshold as follows: Clarify that EVMS requirements are applicable to
all contracts, task and delivery orders that are cost or fixed-price
incentive fee, have a value of $20 million or more, including options,
have a period of performance of 18 months or longer, and contain
developmental work scope; raise the dollar threshold from $50 million
to $100 million for requiring EVMS compliance reviews; remove the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) designation from the
American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance
Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748), which was
revised to EIA-748, in March 2013 Tech America Standard publication;
clarify the contractor's and Government's role in identifying and
approving over-target baseline or over-target schedule, and; clarify
that EVMS requirements are to flow down to subcontracts.
NASA will also amend the NFS to implement revisions to the voucher
and invoice submittal and payment process. These revisions are
necessary in order for NASA to comply with the Office of Management and
Budget issued Memorandum M-15-19, Improving Government Efficiency and
Saving Taxpayer Dollars through Electronic Invoicing, which directed
federal agencies to transition to electronic invoicing for appropriate
federal procurement by the end of the fiscal year 2018.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily
issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the
public. These regulations include records management, information
services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For
example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies
concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records.
Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also
issues Governmentwide regulations concerning information security
classification, control, and declassification programs. NARA
regulations directed to the public address access to, and use of, our
historically valuable holdings, including archives, donated historical
materials, Nixon Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA
also issues regulations relating to the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has two regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, which are
included in The Regulatory Plan. The first priority is a substantial
revision to NARA's National Industrial Security Program (NISP)
regulations at 32 CFR 2004. The NISP regulations govern release of
classified information to contractors and other entities that enter
agreements with the Federal Government involving access to classified
information. Although we are proposing to substantially revise the
regulation, the proposed revisions would affect only minor changes to
the program's requirements for contractors and other entities. The
proposed changes primarily include new sections
[[Page 1795]]
setting out agency obligations in the course of implementing the
program that reflect already-existing requirements for industry
contained in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual
(NISPOM), and streamline or clarify other sections of the regulation.
In addition, a small portion of the proposed revisions add requirements
from Executive Order 13587 to implement the insider threat program.
The second priority this fiscal year is a new regulation for the
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The Open Government
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524), amended the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and created OGIS
within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is
finalizing regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify,
elaborate upon, and specify the procedures in place for Federal
agencies and public requesters who seek OGIS's services within the FOIA
system. The regulation will describe one of the areas in which OGIS
carries out its role as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman by working with
Federal agencies to provide an alternative to litigation in resolving
FOIA disputes.
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Fall 2017 Unified Agenda
OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor
a world-class workforce for the American people.
We manage Federal job announcement postings at
USAJOBS.gov, and set policy on governmentwide hiring procedures.
We conduct background investigations for prospective
employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of
thousands of cases each year.
We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil
service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in
all aspects of personnel management.
We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees
and their families. We also administer health and other insurance
programs for Federal employees and retirees.
We provide training and development programs and other
management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and
implementing new governmentwide policies that relate to personnel
issues.
Altogether, we work to make the Federal government America's model
employer for the 21st century.
OPM's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required OPM to appoint a Regulatory Reform
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force)
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive
Order 12866.
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its
entirety at www.reginfo.gov. Agenda information is also available at
www.regulations.gov, the government-wide website for submission of
comments on proposed regulations. Our fall 2017 agenda follows.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hickman, (202) 606-1973 or
[email protected].
BILLING CODE 6325-44-P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal
corporation created under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits
earned by nearly 40 million workers and retirees in nearly 24,000
private-sector defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues.
Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment income,
assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the
companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans. PBGC administers
two insurance programs--one for single-employer defined benefit pension
plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.
Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer
program, when a plan terminates with insufficient assets to cover all
plan benefits (distress and involuntary terminations), PBGC pays plan
benefits that are guaranteed under title IV. PBGC also pays
nonguaranteed plan benefits to the extent funded by plan assets or
recoveries from employers.
Multiemployer Program. The multiemployer program covers
collectively bargained plans involving more than one unrelated
employer. PBGC provides financial assistance (in the form of a loan) to
the plan if the plan is unable to pay benefits at the guaranteed level.
The guarantee is structured differently from, and is generally
significantly smaller than, the single-employer guarantee.
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, PBGC had a deficit of $11
billion in its single-employer insurance program and $65 billion in its
multiemployer insurance program. While the financial position of the
single-employer program is likely (but not certain) to continue to
improve, the multiemployer program is likely to run out of funds by the
end of 2025. If that happens, PBGC will not have the money to pay
benefits at the current guaranteed levels to multiemployer plan
participants whose plans run out of money.
To carry out its statutory functions, PBGC issues regulations on
such matters as how to pay premiums, when reports are due, what
benefits are covered by the insurance program, how to terminate a plan,
the liability for underfunding, and how withdrawal liability works for
multiemployer plans. PBGC follows a regulatory approach that seeks to
encourage the continuation and maintenance of defined benefit plans.
So, in developing new regulations and reviewing existing regulations,
PBGC seeks to reduce burdens on plans, employers, and participants, and
to ease and simplify employer compliance wherever possible. PBGC
particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor
defined benefit plans. In all such efforts, PBGC's mission is to
protect the retirement incomes of plan participants.
Regulatory/Deregulatory Objectives and Priorities
PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities are
developed in the context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
[[Page 1796]]
To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary
private pension plans;
To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of
pension benefits; and
To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
Pension plans and the statutory framework in which they are
maintained and terminated are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is
committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely
regulations to help affected parties. PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory
objectives and priorities for the fiscal year are:
To enhance the retirement security of workers and
retirees;
To implement statutory changes through regulatory actions
that ease compliance burdens and achieve maximum net benefits; and
To simplify existing regulations and reduce burden.
PBGC endeavors in all its regulatory and deregulatory actions to
promote clarity and reduce burden with the goal that net cost impact on
the public is zero or less overall. PBGC's most important actions are:
Missing participants. A major focus of PBGC's current efforts is to
finalize rules to simplify and revise the existing missing participants
program to help connect more participants with their lost retirement
savings. As authorized by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), the
revised program will cover terminating defined contribution plans,
defined benefit plans of small professional-service employers that are
not covered by title IV of ERISA, and multiemployer plans, in addition
to terminating single-employer defined benefit plans. The program will
save retirement plans time and money in dealing with the benefits of
missing participants. And a centralized search directory and periodic
searching by PBGC will make finding lost benefits much easier. PBGC
expects many more workers and retirees will be reunited with their
retirement dollars. PBGC published a proposed rule on September 20,
2016, received 14 comments, and intends to publish a final rule early
in FY 2018. (See RIN 1212-AB13.)
Mergers and Transfers Between Multiemployer Plans. The
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) established new options
(plan partitions and mergers) for trustees of multiemployer plans that
will potentially run out of money to apply to PBGC for technical or
financial assistance. This action primarily will prescribe guidance to
facilitate mergers of certain financially troubled multiemployer plans
pursuant to MPRA, thereby reducing plan costs and significantly
benefitting plan participants. Mergers are a way some plans can
preserve and protect benefits earned by workers. Such plans could
stabilize or increase their base of contributing employers, combine
plan assets for more efficient investing, and reduce plan
administrative costs. PBGC published a proposed rule on June 6, 2016,
received 10 comments, and intends to publish a final rule early in FY
2018. (See RIN 1212-AB31.)
Rethinking Existing Regulations
Most of PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory actions are the result of
its ongoing retrospective review program to identify and ameliorate
inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and requirements made irrelevant over
time. PBGC undertook a review of its multiemployer plan regulations and
has identified rules in which it can reduce burden and clarify
guidance. For example, PBGC plans to propose reductions in actuarial
valuation requirements for certain small terminated multiemployer
pension plans, notice requirements on plan sponsors of plans terminated
by mass withdrawal, and reporting and disclosure requirements on
sponsors of insolvent plans (``Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer
Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors'' RIN 1212-AB38). Another proposal
would simplify how multiemployer plans calculate withdrawal liability
where changes in contributions or benefits are, by statute, to be
disregarded in that calculation (``Methods for Computing Withdrawal
Liability'' RIN 1212-AB36).
PBGC plans to propose a ``housekeeping'' rulemaking project to make
miscellaneous technical corrections, clarifications, and improvements
to PBGC's regulations, such as the reportable events regulation
(particularly addressing duplicative active participant reduction event
reporting) and the regulation on annual financial and actuarial
information reporting (``Miscellaneous Corrections, Clarifications, and
Improvements'' RIN 1212-AB34). PBGC expects to undertake periodic
rulemaking projects like this that deal with minor technical and
clarifying issues. The ``Benefit Payments'' proposal (RIN 1212-AB27)
would make clarifications and codify policies in PBGC's benefit
payments and valuation regulations involving payment of lump sums,
entitlement to a benefit, changes to benefit form, partial benefit
distributions, and valuation of plan assets. PBGC's regulatory review
also identified a need to update the rules for administrative review of
agency decisions (RIN 1212-AB35).
Multiple proposed rulemakings would update PBGC's regulations and
policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains
current. PBGC plans to publish proposed rules that would amend its
benefit valuation and asset allocation regulations by updating its
valuation assumptions and methods. Chief among the modifications PBGC
is considering at this time are to interest and mortality assumptions
under the asset allocation regulation (RIN 1212-AA55), and the
methodology for setting interest assumptions under the benefit payments
regulation (RIN 1212-AB41).
Small Businesses
PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small
businesses in making policy. Many plans PBGC insures are sponsored by
small businesses. PBGC is considering several proposed actions that
will have a positive impact on small businesses, notably its ``Missing
Participants'' final rule discussed above. This rule would benefit
small businesses by simplifying and streamlining current requirements,
better coordinating with requirements of other agencies, and providing
more options for sponsors of terminating non-covered plans (i.e.,
defined contribution plans and plans of small professional-service
employers). The ``Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and
Duties of Plan Sponsors'' proposal also discussed above would reduce
valuation and reporting burdens primarily on small multiemployer plans,
which generally are comprised of small employers.
Open Government and Increased Public Participation
PBGC encourages public participation in the regulatory process. For
example, PBGC highlights when there are opportunities to comment on
proposed rules and requests for information on its ``Retirement
Matters'' blog and in its ``What's New for Employers and
Practitioners'' updates. PBGC's current efforts to reduce regulatory
burden in the projects discussed above are in substantial part a
response to public comments. Most recently, PBGC asked for feedback on
its regulatory planning and review of existing regulations by way of a
Request for Information (RFI) published on July 26. A number of
individuals and organizations responded, and PBGC is actively
considering the comments, some of which are already reflected in this
Fall agenda. PBGC encourages comments on an on-going basis as we
continue to look
[[Page 1797]]
for ways to further improve PBGC's regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-02-S
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to
maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the
establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the
physical and economic recovery of communities after disasters. In
carrying out this mission, SBA strives to improve the economic
environment for small businesses, including those in areas that have
significantly higher unemployment and lower income levels than the
Nation's averages and those in traditionally underserved markets. SBA
has several financial, procurement, and technical assistance programs
that provide a crucial foundation for those starting or growing a small
business. For example, the Agency serves as a guarantor of loans made
to small business by lenders that participate in SBA's programs, and
also licenses small business investment companies that make equity and
debt investments in qualifying small businesses using a combination of
privately raised capital and SBA guaranteed leverage. SBA also funds
various training and mentoring programs to help small businesses,
particularly businesses owned by women, veterans, minorities, and other
historically underrepresented groups, gain access to Federal government
contracting opportunities. The Agency also provides management and
technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners
through various grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. Finally,
as a vital part of its purpose, SBA also provides direct financial
assistance to homeowners, renters, and businesses to repair or replace
their property in the aftermath of a disaster.
Reducing Burden on Small Businesses
SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing
regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in
particular the Agency's core constituents--small businesses. SBA's
regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and
benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review;'' Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review;'' and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to
reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan,
grant, innovation, and procurement programs.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' 82 FR 9339, which
establishes principles for prioritizing an agency's regulatory and
deregulatory actions. E.O. 13771 was followed by E.O. 13777,
``Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,'' 82 FR 12285 (February 24, 2017),
which identified processes for agencies to follow in overseeing their
regulatory programs. This Agenda was prepared in accordance with both
E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, and SBA will continue to work internally, as
well as with the Office of Management and Budget, to fully integrate
the executive orders and implementing OMB principles into the SBA
rulemaking processes. As part of that effort, SBA issued a Request for
Information in the Federal Register requesting public input on which
SBA regulations should be repealed, replaced, or modified because they
are obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective or burdensome. 82 FR 38617
(August 15, 2017). In addition, SBA's Office of Advocacy is hosting a
series of small business roundtables in order to hear firsthand from
small businesses facing regulatory burdens. For more information on
these roundtables, please visit https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-reform.
Based on the requirements of E.O. 13771 and OMB guidance, SBA
currently anticipates that 3 of the 29 rulemakings that will appear in
the Agency's Regulatory Agenda will be regulatory actions and 1 will be
a deregulatory action. All other rulemakings are either not subject to
E.O. 13771 or there is insufficient information at this stage to
determine whether they are regulatory or deregulatory actions. SBA
continues to work on assessing the incremental cost savings of these
Agenda items, which do not include non-rulemakings, such as guidance
documents, or information collections.
Openness and Transparency
SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation
in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments
on its regulations, even those that are not subject to the public
notice and comment requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other
public events as part of its regulatory process.
Regulatory Framework
The SBA Strategic Plan serves as the foundation for the regulations
that the Agency will develop during the next twelve months. This
Strategic Plan provides a framework for strengthening, streamlining,
and simplifying SBA's programs while leveraging collaborative
relationships with other agencies and the private sector to maximize
the tools small business owners and entrepreneurs need to drive
American innovation and strengthen the economy. The plan sets out three
strategic goals: (1) Growing businesses and creating jobs; (2) serving
as the voice for small business; and (3) building an SBA that meets the
needs of today's and tomorrow's small businesses. In order to achieve
these goals SBA will, among other objectives, focus on:
Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive
lending network;
Ensuring Federal contracting goals are met or exceeded by
collaborating across the Federal Government to expand opportunities for
small businesses and strengthen the integrity of the Federal
contracting data and certification process;
Strengthening SBA's relevance to high growth entrepreneurs
and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job
creation; and
Mitigating risk and improving program oversight.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and
plan are intended to facilitate achievement of these goals and
objectives. Over the next twelve months, SBA's highest priorities will
be to implement the following three regulations.
E.O. 13771 Designation--Regulatory Action
(1) SBA Express Loan Program; Export Express Program (RIN 3245-
AG74);
This rule will propose to amend the regulations for the SBA Express
and Export Express loan programs. Current regulations, as well as
policy and procedural guidance, provide an extensive framework for the
delivery of SBA's 7(a) guaranteed loans through participating private
sector lenders. These requirements add time and expense for lenders who
must not only comply with their primary banking regulator but also with
the SBA program requirements. SBA is authorized to reduce some of its
requirements for small dollar loans ($350,000 or less) and permit
lenders to apply many of their conventional underwriting rules instead.
This proposed regulation will solicit public comment on the terms and
conditions that would apply to these
[[Page 1798]]
reduced requirements. The rule will also propose to not require certain
SBA mandated forms, which in some instances may be redundant, and
increase costs for lenders to deliver loans to small businesses. Since
cost is an important consideration for lenders when assessing the
benefits of participating in SBA programs, streamlining program
requirements should increase lender participation, particularly for
community banks, credit unions and other mission based lenders that
generally serve rural communities and underserved populations with
small loans. In addition, SBA continues to explore the economic
feasibility of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 Recovery Opportunity
Loan Program.
E.O. 13771 Designation--Other Actions
(2) Women's Business Center Program (RIN 3245-AG02).
SBA's Women's Business Center Program is authorized by section 29
of the Small Business Act. The program provides financial assistance to
private nonprofit organizations to conduct 5-year projects for the
benefit of small business concerns owned and controlled by women. There
are currently no regulations that govern the administration, management
or oversight of the WBC program, including the statutorily required
regulations related to disclosure of certain information during a
financial audit of the non-profit organization. By finalizing the
proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on November
22, 2016 (81 FR 83718), this rule will resolve the regulatory gap and
provide standardized and transparent guidance for program participants.
This final rule will codify the program requirements and procedures
for WBCs as outlined in statute, including:
Eligibility criteria for selection as a WBC;
use of Federal funds;
standards for WBCs to effectively carry out program duties
and responsibilities;
use and disclosure of client data as stipulated in
statute;
conditions for receipt of supplemental funding to provide
services in a declared major disaster area; and
requirements for reporting on financial and programmatic
performance.
The rule will streamline the policy and procedural requirements of
the WBC Program, which are currently included in the Program
Announcement and Notice of Award (NOA). In addition, certain amendments
to government-wide grant requirements will be incorporated.
(3) Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged
Women-Owned Small Business--Certification (RIN 3245-AG75).
SBA is proposing to amend its regulations to implement amendments
to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged
Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) Federal Contract Program that were
authorized by section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2015. Based on this authority, SBA is proposing to create a
certification program for its WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program.
The current WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program permits firms to
self-certify for the program or to be certified by a third party
certifier (TPC). The program currently requires firms to submit
documentation to an SBA-maintained electronic document repository. SBA
regulations currently require that contracting officers must check the
repository for every WOSB or EDWOSB contract awardee.
The proposed rule will create an SBA certification process, in
addition to the certifications issued by TPCs. This will create an SBA
certification option for WOSB and EDWOSBs similar to other SBA
contracting programs. SBA's proposed rule will also contain provisions
for increased oversight in order to ensure continuing eligibly of
certified program participants.
The creation of an SBA certification program will remove the self-
certification option, and also remove the requirement that contracting
officers review repository documents of WOSB and EDWOSB contract
awardees. This shift of responsibilities to SBA will enable contracting
officers to focus more on awarding awards, which should lead to an
increased number of set-aside or sole source contracts for WOSBs and
EDWOSBs.
SBA
Proposed Rule Stage
119. SBA Express Loan Program; Export Express Program
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(31) and (35)
CFR Citation: 13 CFR 120.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, August 21, 2016, RISE After
Disaster Act of 2015, Public Law 114-88, section 2106.
Section 2106 requires SBA to promulgate rules to carry out the
Recovery Opportunity Loan Program not later than 270 days (August 21,
2016) after enactment of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015.
Abstract: SBA plans to issue a proposed regulation for the SBA
Express loan program, codified in section 7(a)(31) of the Small
Business Act. The SBA Express loan program reduces the number of
Government mandated forms and procedures, streamlines the processing
and reduces the cost of smaller, less complex SBA loans. Particular
features of the SBA Express loan program include: (1) SBA Express loans
carry a maximum SBA guaranty of 50 percent; (2) SBA Express lenders
use, to the maximum extent practicable, their own documentation,
analyses, policies and procedures; and (3) a response to an SBA Express
loan application will be given within 36 hours. SBA also plans to
propose regulations for the Export Express Program codified at 7(a)(35)
of the Small Business Act. The Export Express Program, made permanent
by the Small Business Jobs Act, makes guaranteed financing available
for export development activities. SBA continues to explore the
economic feasibility of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 Recovery
Opportunity Loan Program.
Statement of Need: This action is necessary to provide regulatory
guidance for SBA Express and Export Express loans authorized by
statute. Current regulatory guidance provides an extensive framework
for the delivery of SBA's 7(a) guaranteed loans through participating
private sector lenders. In general, the requirements add time and
expense for lenders who must comply first with their primary regulator
rules, and then consider the additional burden of any SBA program
requirements. The required use of certain SBA mandated forms is in many
cases redundant, increasing costs for lenders to deliver loans to small
businesses. For the SBA Express and Export Express 7(a) loans Congress
has authorized SBA to reduce specific requirements and instead permit
lenders on small dollar loans ($350,000 or less for SBA Express and
$500,000 or less for Export Express) to apply many of their
conventional underwriting rules and to use their own documentation.
This regulation will detail the reduced requirements for these
guaranteed loans. It is necessary to provide clear and succinct
regulatory guidance for lenders to encourage participation in extending
smaller dollar loans, and to ensure their ability to comply, and extend
credit with confidence in their ability to rely on
[[Page 1799]]
payment by SBA of the guaranty if necessary.
Summary of Legal Basis: The SBA Express loans are authorized in
Section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act and Export Express loans
were made permanent by the Small Business Jobs Act and are authorized
in Section 7(a)(35) of the Small Business Act.
Alternatives: The SBA has provided guidance on the SBA Express and
Export Express loans in SOP 50 10 Lender and Development Company
Programs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While the number of lenders and
loans should increase, SBA anticipates no additional cost from this
regulatory action because the Express programs have been in use and
performing for over 5 years. Portfolio performance including
prepayment, default and recovery behaviors is already being captured in
the 7(a) program's annual subsidy calculation.
Lenders who participate in the SBA Express program agree to accept
a lower guaranty of 50 percent on loans of $350,000 or less in return
for delegated authority and the ability to use forms, procedures and
policies that they already follow for similarly sized non-SBA
guaranteed commercial loans. This removes the additional layer of
documents and permits a lender to move more quickly to a decision and
funding of small dollar small business loans. Cost to deliver is an
important consideration for lenders when assessing the benefits of
participating with SBA programs. Streamlined rules result in increased
lender participation, particularly for community banks, credit unions
and other mission based lenders who generally serve more of rural
communities and underserved populations with small loans. While SBA
does not have specific statistics, cost savings to the lender generally
trickle down to the small business applicant. Further, providing plain
language regulatory guidance for the SBA Express program will reduce
improper payment risk for lenders and SBA, by ensuring that lenders are
fully informed and understand the program requirements.
The Export Express program provides lenders with a 75-90 percent
guaranty, as well as the authority to use their own forms, procedures
and policies to the extent possible to reduce redundancy in
documentation, time and costs associated with underwriting export loans
up to and including $500,000.
Risks: The risk of not having regulations may impact the number of
improper payments and/or denial of guarantee for lenders due to
misinterpretation of program requirements.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Dianna L. Seaborn, Director, Office of Financial
Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW,
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-3645, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3245-AG74
SBA
120. Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-
Owned Small Business--Certification
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-291, sec. 825; 15 U.S.C. 637(m)
CFR Citation: 13 CFR 127.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA), Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292, Dec. 19,
2014, included language requiring that women-owned small business
concerns and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business
concerns are certified by a Federal agency, a State government, the
Administrator, or national certifying entity approved by the
Administrator as a small business concern owned and controlled by
women. This rule will propose the standards and procedures for
participation in this certification program. This rule will also
propose to revise the procedures for continuing eligibility, program
examinations, protest and appeals. The proposed revisions will reflect
public comments that SBA received in response to the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that the agency issued in December 2016 to solicit
feedback on implementation of the program. Finally, SBA is planning to
continue to utilize new technology to improve its efficiency and
decrease small business burdens, and therefore, the new certification
procedures will be based on an electronic application and certification
process.
Statement of Need: Proposed rule to implement statutory requirement
to certify Women Owned Small Business Concerns (WOSBs) for purposes of
receiving set aside and sole source contracts under the WOSB program.
Summary of Legal Basis: These proposed regulations implement
section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015, Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (December 19, 2014) (2015
NDAA).
Alternatives: The proposed regulations are required to implement
specific statutory provisions which require promulgation of
implementing regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefit of the proposed
regulation is a significant improvement in the confidence of
contracting officers to make federal contract awards to eligible firms.
Under the existing system, the burden of eligibility compliance was
placed upon the awarding contracting officer. Under this new proposed
rule, the burden is placed upon SBA. This will encourage more
contracting officers to set-aside opportunities for WOSB Program
participants as the validation process will be controlled by SBA in
both the System for Award Management and the Dynamic Small Business
Search.
Risks: There is always a slight risk that an agency will award a
set aside contract to a firm that is ineligible. Certification of firms
prior to award will lessen this risk.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/18/15 80 FR 78984
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 02/16/16 .......................
NPRM................................ 01/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kenneth Dodds, Director, Office of Policy, Planning
and Liaison, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW,
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 619-1766, Fax: 202 481-2950, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3245-AG75
SBA
Final Rule Stage
121. Office of Women's Business Ownership: Women's Business Center
Program
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 656
[[Page 1800]]
CFR Citation: 13 CFR 131.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership (OWBO)
oversees a network of SBA-funded Women's Business Centers (WBCs)
throughout the United States and its territories. WBCs provide
management and technical assistance to small business concerns both
nascent and established, with a focus on such businesses that are owned
and controlled by women, or on women planning to start a business,
especially women who are economically or socially disadvantaged. The
training and counseling provided by the WBCs encompass a comprehensive
array of topics, such as finance, management and marketing in various
languages. This rule will codify the requirements and procedures that
govern the delivery, funding and evaluation of the management and
technical assistance provided under the WBC Program. The rule will
address, among other things, the eligibility criteria for selection as
a WBC, use of Federal funds, standards for effectively carrying out
program duties and responsibilities, the requirements for reporting on
financial and programmatic performance, and provisions regarding the
collection and use of the individual WBC client data.
Statement of Need: There are currently no regulations that codify
the legislative authority of the Agency to administer the Women's
Business Center (WBC). The Program started as a pilot in 1988 and a
regulation governing its operations was never promulgated after it
became a Program in 2007. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-240) amended Section 29(n) of the Small Business Act (the Act), 15
U.S.C. 656, to direct the SBA Administrator to issue regulations to
establish standards for requiring disclosures during a financial audit.
In order to meet this legislative requirement, SBA must issue
regulations for the WBC program.
This rule finalizes proposed regulatory language that would codify
this legislative authority as well as streamline the policy and
procedural requirements of the Program currently included in the
Program Announcement and Notice of Award (NOA). This rule also
incorporates flexibilities allowable during disasters enacted under the
RISE After Disaster Act. Changes made with the publication of 2 CFR
part 200 and other federal grant requirements enforced over the past 28
years have been incorporated. Once final, the rule's implementation
would result in standardization and transparency to Program delivery.
Summary of Legal Basis: The WBC Program was created under the
authority of Title II of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988
(Pub. L. 100-533). The WBC Program authority is now codified in section
29 of the Act. Section 29(n)(3) of the Small Business Act (the Act)
directs the SBA Administrator to issue regulations to establish
standards for requiring disclosures during a financial audit.
Note, since its creation, the WBC Program has changed through a
number of Pub. L.s that have turned the WBC Program from a
Demonstration into a permanent program. Laws that have impacted the
Program include: The Women's Business Development Act of 1991 (Pub. L.
102-191); The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 (Pub.
L. 106-165): U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery,
and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-28);
The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240); and the RISE
After Disaster Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-88).
Alternatives: The alternative to not yet publish regulations, and
continue to rely on grant documents to implement the WBC Program, is
not one that SBA would like to exercise. Because the statute
specifically requires SBA to publish regulations for the WBC Program,
exercising this alternative would not be compliant. SBA believes that
issuing regulations for the WBC Program would establish and ensure
long-lasting consistency in Program implementation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA analyzed the costs and benefits
associated with both the application process to become funded as a WBC
and the on-going operations for currently funded WBCs, as the
populations are different for the application process and the existing
WBCs.
This proposed rule could theoretically affect all nonprofit
entities as the statute requires that an entity be organized as a
nonprofit in order to participate. According to the IRS, for tax year
2010, there were over 269,000 entities that filed returns as a
501(c)(3). As the application process is voluntary and does not require
a nonprofit entity to apply, the vast majority of nonprofits would not
be affected. Over the past 5 years, there were a total of 133 new
applications submitted for the WBC Program averaging 25-35 applications
per year. The SF 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) on grants.gov
does not include a field for revenue size. Based on the majority of the
entities being small, SBA can presume that the majority of the
Applicant Organizations are also small. It is projected that a grants
writer would take approximately 20 hours to complete and submit the
required application forms through grants.gov. For a grants writer at
an average of $30 per hour, this would cost approximately $600. These
estimates are based on the burden statements associated with the
grants.gov application forms and anecdotal information from Applicant
Organizations to the WBC Program. Therefore, the SBA has determined
that the application section of the proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There are currently 110 entities that participate in the WBC
Program, all of which are small entities. However, the SBA has
determined that the impact on these entities affected by the rule will
not be significant. The rule codifies current policies and procedures
that are already achieved through a Cooperative Agreement with the SBA.
It does not include new reporting requirements. Rather it standardizes
existing policies to ensure transparency and consistency which in
theory will reduce the cost to both the WBC participants and SBA. A WBC
participating in the WBC Program submits a Federal Financial Report and
attachments twice a year. The estimated burden for these reports is 2
hours twice a year. The annual submission of a work plan is
substantially less than the Application and is only to update any
changes from the initial Application. The estimate for these forms on
an annual basis is a total of 14 hours. For a grants writer at $30 per
hour, the annual estimated cost would be $420.
Risks: SBA believes that this rule minimizes financial risk to the
Agency and the program. The increased transparency of the program,
including standard definitions and requirements, would help WBC Program
participants comply with applicable laws and statutes. The regulations
would codify the actions the Agency is authorized to take when a non-
federal entity does not comply with the program. This in turn reduces
the risk that funds allocated to the non-federal entities would be
misused, and therefore minimizes a financial risk to the Agency.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/22/15 80 FR 22434
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/22/15 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/22/16 81 FR 83718
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/23/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1801]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Bruce D. Purdy, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Women's Business Ownership, Small Business Administration,
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-7532, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3245-AG02
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)
I. Statement of Regulatory Priorities
We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act,
and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act.
As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of
the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and
our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or
local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination
Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in
advance or via reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability
determinations.
The entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of major
importance to the Agency. Through our regulatory plan, we intend to:
A. Update the medical criteria used to evaluate disability
applications to keep pace with medicine, science, technology, and
workforce changes;
B. Ensure quality decisions while carefully reducing the hearings
backlog, improving the disability appeals process, and improving the
integrity of the disability determinations process;
C. Update SSA disability evaluation criteria, and ensure the
accuracy of SSA claimant and beneficiary data;
D. Protect SSA claimants and beneficiaries through representative
and representative payee rules and standards;
E. Combat Social Security fraud and impose civil monetary penalties
for specific violations of the Social Security Act, while also
increasing overpayment collection thresholds for OASI and DI benefit
payments to be consistent with SSI; and
F. Update our Freedom of Information Act and Privacy and Disclosure
rules.
Regulatory Reform
We designate all of the proposed regulations in this plan as
``fully or partially exempt'' under Executive Order 13771. In
compliance with the Administration's Regulatory Reform efforts, as
prescribed by Executive Order 13771 and Executive Order 13777, SSA is
committed to engaging in regulatory activity only when strictly
necessary and to reducing regulatory burden wherever possible.
Accordingly, our Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan include only those
regulatory activities needed to administer our Social Security benefits
and payments programs. Moreover, the Agenda includes de-regulatory
items to remove outdated regulatory sections from the Code of Federal
Regulations. Finally, we remain committed to innovate in ways that ease
burdens on the public even outside the realm of formal de-regulation,
such as through developing online reporting and application tools.
II. Regulations in the Prerule Stage
Our regulation in the prerule stage will:
Help protect our claimants and beneficiaries by asking for
advance input on which types of previous criminal histories, if any,
should preclude someone from serving as an organizational
representative payee (RIN 0960-AH79).
III. Regulations in the Proposed Rule Stage
Our regulations will:
Comprehensively update the medical listings for evaluating
musculoskeletal disorders (RIN 0960-AG38);
Selectively update the medical listings for evaluating
digestive, cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 0960-AG65);
Ensure the accuracy of the data we collect by codifying
our authority to access and use electronic payroll data (RIN 0960-
AH88);
Propose to impose deadlines on when claimant
representatives must file fee petitions, to mandate standardized
registration for all individuals wishing to be representatives, and
will propose to add educational requirements for direct pay non-
attorney representatives (RIN 0960-AI22);
Clarify our rules regarding the redetermination of
entitlement when fraud or similar fault is involved. (RIN 0960-AI10);
Impose that SSA can assess the maximum allowable civil
monetary penalty for certain violations of the Social Security Act (RIN
0960-AH91 and 0960-AI04);
Update our Freedom of Information act policies to reflect
recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI07); and
Allow SSA to create two new categories of Privacy Act
exemptions, enabling the retention of important records (RIN 0960-AH97
and 0960-AI08).
IV. Regulations in the Final Rule Stage
Our regulation in the final rule stage will:
Make permanent the Attorney Advisor program, helping to
reduce the hearings backlog (RIN 0960-AI23).
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), SSA regularly
engages in retrospective review and analysis for multiple existing
regulatory initiatives. These initiatives may be proposed or completed
actions, and they do not necessarily appear in The Regulatory Plan. You
can find more information on these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda at www.reginfo.gov in the
``Completed Actions'' section for the Social Security Administration.
SSA
Prerule Stage
122. Investigative Policies for Organizational Representative Payees
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This ANPRM will solicit public input about whether and
how we should strengthen our investigative policies and practices for
organizational representative payees. Currently, we obtain and verify
an Employer Identification Number for organizational representative
payee applicants. We do not collect and verify the Social Security
numbers of anyone in these organizations, and we do not conduct a
criminal background investigation on any individual in these
organizations. We are considering how we should treat organizational
representative payee applicants who employ individuals convicted of
certain crimes.
Statement of Need: Under our current policy, we prohibit persons
convicted of certain crimes from serving as a representative payee. We
believe this policy helps to protect beneficiaries
[[Page 1802]]
from persons whose criminal history indicates they may pose an
increased risk of exploiting vulnerable individuals. We believe a
similar bar policy should apply to individuals employed by
organizational payees. Given the complexities of applying a criminal
bar policy to individuals employed by organizational payees, we need
public input on how to apply such a policy.
Summary of Legal Basis: N/A ANPRM.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: N/A. This is a solicitation for
public input. We do not anticipate that any proposal we formulate from
this ANPRM will impose a cost on members of the public.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Eric Ice, Social Insurance Specialist, Social
Security Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-3233,
Email: eric.ice.ssa.gov.
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0960-AH79
SSA
Proposed Rule Stage
123. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders
(3318P)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b);
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Sections 1.00 and 101.00, Musculoskeletal System, of
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those
musculoskeletal system disorders that we consider severe enough to
prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked
and severe functional limitations for a child. We propose to revise the
criteria in these sections to reflect our adjudicative experience,
advances in medical knowledge and treatment of musculoskeletal
disorders, and comments from medical experts.
Statement of Need: We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing
of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving
musculoskeletal disorders in adults and children under titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). These proposed revisions reflect
our adjudicative experience, advances in medical knowledge and
treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, recommendations from medical
experts, and comments we received in response to a final rule with
request for public comments that we published in November 2001.
These rules are necessary to evaluate claims for Social Security
disability benefits.
Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or
court order.
Alternatives: We considered continuing to use our current criteria.
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary to ensure
that our criteria reflect advances in medical knowledge and treatment
since we last revised these rules.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs and benefits--not
yet determined.
Risks: We expect the public and adjudicators to support the removal
and clarification of ambiguous terms and phrases, and the addition of
specific, demonstrable functional criteria for determining listing-
level severity of all musculoskeletal disorders.
We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of
the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and
listings easier to access and understand.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Michael Goldstein, Social Insurance Specialist,
Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-2733 Email:
[email protected].
Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security Administration,
Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: [email protected].
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AG38
SSA
124. Update to the Comprehensive Medical Listings--Revised Medical
Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders, Cardiovascular Disorders,
and Skin Disorders
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b);
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular Systems;
Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive Systems; and sections 8.00 and
108.00, Skin Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our
regulations describe those disorders that we consider severe enough to
prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked
and severe functional limitations for a child claiming Supplemental
Security Income payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise
the criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in
medical knowledge and treatment.
Statement of Need: These rules are necessary to evaluate claims for
Social Security disability benefits.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular
Systems; Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive
[[Page 1803]]
Systems; and Sections 8.00 and 108.00, Skin Disorders, of appendix 1 to
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations.
This proposed rule is not required by statute or court order.
Alternatives: We considered continuing to use our current criteria.
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary because of
advances in medical, technology, and treatment since we last revised
these rules.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate
disability evaluations.
Costs: None.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/12/07 72 FR 70527
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 02/11/08
NPRM................................ 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email:
[email protected].
Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-7782, Email:
[email protected].
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0960-AG74, Related to 0960-AG91
RIN: 0960-AG65
SSA
125. Minimum Monthly Withholding Amount for Recovery of Title II
Benefit Overpayments (3752P)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3716; 31 U.S.C. 3720A; 42 U.S.C. 404; 42
U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1320b-17
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.502.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The numbers below present the estimated effects on OASDI
overpayment collections of a regulatory proposal to increase the
minimum monthly benefit withholding from $10 to 10 percent of the
benefit payable for the month. Debtors could still pay less if the
negotiated amount would allow for repayment of the debt in 36 months.
Under the proposed regulation, we estimate that previously
negotiated withholding schedules would remain in place. For fiscal
years 2013 through 2017, we estimate an increase in overpayment
collections of $137 million; and for fiscal years 2013 through 2022, we
estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $644 million.
Statement of Need: We propose to change the minimum monthly
withholding amount for recovery of title II benefit overpayments to
reflect the increase in the average monthly title II benefit since we
established the current minimum of $10 in 1960. By changing this amount
from $10 to 10 percent of the monthly benefit payable, we would recover
overpayments more effectively and better fulfill our stewardship
obligations to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund
and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The numbers below present the
estimated effects on OASDI overpayment collections of a regulatory
proposal to increase the minimum monthly benefit withholding from $10
to 10 percent of the benefit payable for the month. Debtors could still
pay less if the negotiated amount would allow for repayment of the debt
in 36 months.
The estimate is based on the historical record of overpayment
collections over the period January 2002 to December 2011, prepared for
us by the Office of Quality Performance. We used this file of
individual-level data to compute what the collections would have been
had the 10-percent minimum been put in place at the beginning of this
period. We used the same record to ascertain the growth in incurred
debt over time, which we then projected to the fiscal year 2013-22
period.
The proposal is effective for partial-withholding agreements,
negotiated after the effective date of the change assumed to be July 1,
2013. Under the proposed regulation, withholding schedules negotiated
before that date would remain in place. For fiscal years 2013 through
2017, we estimate an increase in overpayment collections of $137
million; and for fiscal years 2013 through 2022 we estimate an increase
in overpayment collections of $644 million.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Schelli Collins, Social Insurance Specialist,
Social Security Administration, Office of Income Security Programs,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1954.
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AH42
SSA
126. Removing Ability To Communicate in English as a Vocational Factor
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a) to 405(b); 42
U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C.
421(h) to (j); 42 U.S.C. 422(c); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42
U.S.C. 902(a)(5)
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1564, Part 404 Subpart P Appendix; 20 CFR
416.964.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We propose to revise existing disability evaluation rules
relating to the ability to communicate in English. Specifically, we
will clarify that an inability to communicate in English is not
tantamount to illiteracy or inadequate verbal communication. Rather, an
inability to communicate adequately verbally or in writing in any
language will be the effective standard. The proposed revisions will
reflect
[[Page 1804]]
current research, analysis of our disability program data, Federal
agency data about workforce participation, and comments we received
from the public in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Statement of Need: These changes would modernize our disability
program consistent with current research and data about disability and
workforce participation.
Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Multiple sections of
the Social Security Act. No aspect is required by statute or court
order.
Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No costs on the public are
anticipated as a result of this proposed rule. Benefits include more
consistent and appropriate evaluations of vocational factors by
eliminating the false equivalence between an inability to communicate
in English and illiteracy.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Daniel O'Brien, Director, Social Security
Administration, Office of Ticket Operations and Provider Support,
Office of Employment Support Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 597-1632.
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AH86
SSA
127. Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 sec. 824
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We propose to implement the Commissioner's access to and
use of the information held by payroll providers. The Agency will use
this data to help administer the disability and SSI programs and
prevent improper payments.
Statement of Need: In accordance with the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015, section 824; the Commissioner of Social Security has the
authority to enter into an information exchange with a payroll or data
provider, allowing us to efficiently administer monthly insurance and
supplemental security income benefits, while preventing improper
payments.
Summary of Legal Basis: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, section 824.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs below represent estimated
costs to the Agency for implementation of this rule:
FY18: $7,305,164.
FY19: $1,753,675.
FY20: $1,753,675.
FY21: $1,753,675.
FY22: $1,753,675.
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Elizabeth Teachey, Director, Social Security
Administration, SSA: OISP/OEMP/DHSLT, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 965-9145, Email:
[email protected].
Eric Skidmore, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security
Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 597-1833, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0960-AH88
SSA
128. Newer and Stronger Penalties (Conforming Changes)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, sec. 813; 42 U.S.C.
1320a-8
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 813 of the BBA establishes civil monetary
penalties in section 1129 of the Social Security Act against
individuals in a position of trust that make false statements,
misrepresentations, or omissions in connection with obtaining or
retaining SSA benefits or payments. Section 813 also establishes a new
felony for conspiracy to commit Social Security fraud, increases felony
penalties for individuals in positions of trust who defraud the SSA,
and disqualifies individuals from receiving benefits during a trial
work period if they are assessed a civil monetary penalty for
concealing work activity.
Statement of Need: Upon enactment of the BBA on November 2, 2015,
civil monetary penalties for individuals in a position of trust took
effect immediately. Imposing penalties against individuals in a
position of trust assists in deterring fraud and maintaining the
integrity of SSA's disability programs. The regulations at 20 CFR 498
should be updated to reflect the BBA's provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 813 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015.
Alternatives: none.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SSA projects no anticipated costs on
the public with completing this regulatory action. Costs for the agency
are as yet undetermined, but are expected to be mostly administrative
in nature. Benefits include strengthening our civil monetary assessment
processes.
Risks: No risk is anticipated since this regulatory action reflects
statutory requirements and authority.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kathi Moore, Director, OPRD, DCBFM/OFPO, Social
Security Administration, Office of Financial Policy and Operations,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-0624.
RIN: 0960-AH91.
SSA
129. Privacy Act Exemption: Personnel Security and Suitability Program
Files
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a; 5 U.S.C. 553
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This NPRM will propose to create a Security and
Suitability Files system to cover any additional security
[[Page 1805]]
and suitability related information generated by SSA that is not sent
to the Office of Personnel Management. We will use the information we
collect to conduct background investigations and establish that
applicants or incumbents, either employed by SSA or working for SSA
under contract, are suitable for employment with us. Additionally, the
NPRM will propose to remove two unused systems listed in our
regulations.
Statement of Need: We are required to amend our Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) when a new system of records is instituted within the
agency that exempts certain records from disclosure. Here, we are
creating a new system of records and an exemption to disclosure of some
of those records, necessitating a new system of records disclosure in
our CFR.
This update will replace the two following systems of records
currently reflected in 401.85:
(iii) Pursuant to subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act:
(A) The Investigatory Material Compiled for Security and
Suitability Purposes System, SSA; and,
(B) The Suitability for Employment Records, SSA.
Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with the Privacy Act (5
U.S.C. 552a), and Subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, we are issuing
public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records.
Alternatives: There is no alternative. Failure to amend our CFR,
while using a new system of records, would be contrary to the statutory
authority and intent of 5 U.S.C. 552.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs. We
stand to benefit through better administrative efficiency by updating
the systems we use for accurately tracking investigatory employment
records.
Risks: Violation of the Privacy Act and OMB requirements.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, Division Director, Social
Security Administration, Office of General Counsel--Policy Disclosure,
6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-0355,
Email: [email protected].
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AH97
SSA
130. References to Social Security and Medicare in Electronic
Communications
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, sec. 814; 42 U.S.C.
1320b-10
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 814 of the BBA clarifies that electronic and
internet communications are included in the prohibitions against
misusing SSA's names, symbols and emblems to convey the false
impression that such items are approved, endorsed, or authorized by
SSA, as stated in Section 1140 of the Social Security Act. In addition,
it treats each dissemination, viewing, or accessing of a communication
as a separate violation.
Statement of Need: Section 814 of the BBA took effect upon
enactment. However, our regulations do not currently reflect this
statutory change. Imposing penalties against individuals in a position
of trust assists in deterring fraud and maintaining the integrity of
SSA's disability programs. The regulations at 20 CFR 498 should be
updated to reflect the BBA's provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this action is section
814 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which went into effect on
November 2, 2015. 42 U.S.C. 1320b-10
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs
associated with this regulatory action. However, the benefit of this
regulatory action is that it will clarify the applicability of section
1140 to electronic and internet communications and minimize unnecessary
litigation as to the applicability of the section 1140 statute.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ranju Shrestha, Chief Counsel to the Inspector
General, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Blvd., Woodlawn,
MD 21235, Phone: 410 966-4440, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AI04
SSA
131. Availability of Information and Records to the Public
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-185, FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C.
552
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 402.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, December 27, 2016, FOIA Reform
Act 2016. Other, Statutory, 12/27/2016, FOIA Reform Act 2016
Abstract: Revisions of our FOIA regulations will address the
requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that our
regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
Statement of Need: Revisions of our FOIA regulation will address
the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that
our regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
Summary of Legal Basis: FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to
the implementation of the statutory requirements.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Monica Chyn, Division Director, Social Security
Administration, Office of General Counsel, Office of Privacy and
Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410
965-0817, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AI07
SSA
132. Privacy Act Exemption: Social Security Administration Violence and
Reporting System (SSAVERS)
Priority: Other Significant.
[[Page 1806]]
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This NPRM will propose to create the Social Security
Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers) to
cover information we collect about employees, contractors, and members
of the public who are allegedly involved in, or witness incidents of
workplace or domestic violence.
Statement of Need: This NPRM will propose to create a new system of
records entitled `Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation
and Reporting System (SSAvers)' to cover any information we collect
about employees, contractors, and members of the public who are
allegedly involved in, or witness incidents of workplace or domestic
violence. It is required for compliance with the Privacy Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to
the operation of this system.
Risks: There are no risks for the operation of this system of
records.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, Division Director, Social
Security Administration, Office of General Counsel--Policy Disclosure,
6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-0355,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AI08
SSA
133. Redeterminations When There Is a Reason to Believe Fraud or
Similar Fault Was Involved in an Individual's Application for Benefits
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) and 1129(l) of the Social
Security Act; 42 U.S.C. 405(u); 42 U.S.C. 1383(E)(7); 42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(l)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We are clarifying our rules regarding the redetermination
of the entitlement or eligibility of individuals when there is reason
to believe fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's
application for benefits. We intend to clarify how and when we
redetermine the entitlement, and the administrative review process when
we decide to terminate benefits.
Statement of Need: Over time, our business processes evolved to
support our statutory redetermination authority. We are now codifying
the basic parameters for redetermination, including relevant
definitions, clarification of notice and redetermination procedures, as
well as a process for administratively reviewing redetermination
termination and overpayment assessment decisions under secs. 205(u) and
1631(e)(7) of the Act, in order to provide the public the opportunity
for comment under the Administrative Procedures Act while providing our
customers and their representatives the ability to find our
redetermination process within our regulatory text.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 205(u), 1129(l), and 1631(e)(7) of
the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(1), 1320a-8(l), and
1383(e)(7). 206(d) of Public Law 103-296, the Social Security
Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1464,
1509.
Alternatives: We could continue to manage our redetermination
processes and procedures under our statutory authority and sub-
regulatory guidances.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Without enumerated regulations, we
may experience additional litigation alleging lack of due process and
violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Risks: Without enumerated regulations, we may experience litigation
alleging lack of due process and violation of the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Lindsay Norris, Attorney, Social Security
Administration, Office of General Counsel, Office of Program Law, 6401
Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 966-4970, Email:
[email protected].
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AI10
SSA
134. Changes to the Requirements for Claimant Representation
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 406
CFR Citation: 20 CFR part 404 Subpart R; 20 CFR part 404 Subpart O;
20 CFR 404.1717(a)(3); 20 CFR 416.1517(a)(3).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We propose to make changes to the requirements for
representing claimants. Specifically, we plan to impose a deadline(s)
on when representatives must file their fee petitions and all
supporting documents and to prohibit representatives from merely
stating their intent to file a fee petition. We also propose to mandate
registration and use of a prescribed form (SSA-1696) from all
representatives who are or wish to be appointed as a representative.
Additionally, we proposed to add educational requirements at the
Associate's level for direct pay non-attorney representatives.
Statement of Need: This regulation will address procedures we
intend to implement regarding how we handle representatives, which
improves our administrative efficiency. We will change to the
representative fee petition and alleviate a significant workload burden
on Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) and Operations. We will mandate
representative registration and completion of Form SSA-1696, critical
requirements for our implementation of the Registration, Appointment
and Services for Representatives system (RASR). We will add educational
requirements for non-attorneys who seek direct fee payment.
Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C 902(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. 406.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are in the early planning stage
and data gathering for this rulemaking. Anticipated costs and benefits
are too early to formally project, but we expect no more than a de
minimis costs, if any, at this time.
Risks:
Timetable:
[[Page 1807]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Daniel O'Brien, Director, Social Security
Administration, Office of Ticket Operations and Provider Support,
Office of Employment Support Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 597-1632.
RIN: 0960-AI22
SSA
Final Rule Stage
135. Making Permanent the Attorney Advisor Program
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C.
1383b
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.942; 20 CFR 416.1442.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Agency is making permanent the Attorney Advisory
Program to continue reducing the hearings backlog and enhance the
service we provide to the public. Specifically, the attorney advisor
initiative is an integral tool that permits some attorney advisors to
develop claims, including holding prehearing conferences, and, in cases
in which the documentary record clearly establishes a fully favorable
decision is warranted, issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing
is conducted.
Statement of Need: Given the historic nature of the disability
hearings backlog, the agency will prioritize scheduling more hearing
faster while ensuring quality decisions. Permanency of the attorney
advisor program gives the agency a way for some attorney advisors to
develop claims, including holding pre-hearing conferences, and in some
cases issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing is conducted.
Summary of Legal Basis: None.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any costs associated with this
program would be administrative and are expected to be minimal to zero.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Final Rule................... 02/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Patrick McGuire, Acting Director Program Analysis
Staff, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 605-7109, Email: [email protected].
Brian J Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer,
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone:
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0960-AI23
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the principal set of
rules governing the acquisition process for acquiring goods and
services from planning, through contract formation, and contract
administration. It regulates the activities of Executive Branch
government personnel in carrying out that process.
The FAR was issued pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act of 1974. The FAR Council membership consists of: The
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Secretary of
Defense, the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space; and the
Administrator of General Services. Statutory authority to issue and
maintain the FAR resides with the Secretary of Defense, the
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration subject to the approval
of the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy. It was established
to codify uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by
agencies. Statutory authorities to issue and revise the FAR have been
delegated to the procurement executives in the Department of Defense
(DoD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The FAR System is codified
at Title 48, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FAR Council's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required GSA to appoint a Regulatory Reform
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force)
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive
Order 12866.
All of the FAR Council's rulemakings are based on requirements of
executive orders, laws, and other agency rulemakings that are based on
laws, Office of Management and Budget policy guidance or GAO
recommendations. The Council dose very little discretionary rulemaking.
Dated: September 19, 2017.
William Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
FAR
Proposed Rule Stage
136. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); FAR Case 2018-002,
Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 137; 51 U.S.C. 20113
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 2; 48 CFR 37; 48 CFR 52.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Presidential Memorandum,
entitled the Mexico City Policy, issued on January 13, 2017, in
accordance with the Department of State's implementation plan dated May
9, 2017. This rule would extend requirements of the memorandum and plan
to new funding agreements for global health assistance furnished by all
departments or agencies. This expanded policy will cover global health
assistance to include funding for international health
[[Page 1808]]
programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health,
malaria, global health security, and certain family planning and
reproductive health.
Statement of Need: Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.
This case implements Presidential Memorandum, entitled the Mexico City
Policy, issued on January 13, 2017. This rule would extend requirements
of the memorandum. The expanded policy will cover global health
assistance to include funding for international health programs, such
as those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global
health security, and certain family planning and reproductive health.
(FAR Case 2018-002).
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, DOD/GSA/
NASA (FAR), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 202 208-
4949, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 9000-AN62
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
FALL 2017 STATEMENT OF REGULATORY PRIORITIES
CFPB Purposes and Functions
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) was
established in 2010 as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve
System by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the
Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and
other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services.
Among these are the consumer financial protection authorities that
transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on the designated
transfer date, July 21, 2011. These authorities include the ability to
issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial
laws.
As provided in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of
the CFPB is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial laws
consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access
to markets for consumer financial products and services and that such
markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. The CFPB is authorized
to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, with
respect to consumer financial products and services:
(1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable
information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions;
(2) Consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts
and practices and from discrimination;
(3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are
regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted
regulatory burdens;
(4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently,
without regard to status of a person as a depository institution, in
order to promote fair competition; and
(5) Markets for consumer financial products and services operate
transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
CFPB Regulatory Priorities
The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from November 1,
2017, to October 31, 2018, include continuing rulemaking activities to
(1) Implement statutory directives; (2) address market failures,
facilitate fair competition among financial service providers, and
improve consumer understanding; and (3) modernize, clarify, and
streamline consumer financial regulations to reduce unwarranted
regulatory burdens.
Bureau Regulatory Efforts To Implement Statutory Directives
Much of the Bureau's rulemaking work is focusing on implementing
directives mandated in the Dodd-Frank Act and other statutes. As part
of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to achieve the consumer
protection objectives of the statutes while minimizing regulatory
burden on financial services providers and facilitating a smooth
implementation process for both industry and consumers.
For example, the Bureau is continuing efforts to facilitate
implementation of critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank
Act that guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to
the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades.
Since 2013, the Bureau has issued regulations as directed by the Dodd-
Frank Act to implement certain protections for mortgage originations
and servicing, integrate various Federal mortgage disclosures, and
amend mortgage reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Bureau is conducting follow-up rulemakings
as warranted to address issues that have arisen during the
implementation process for these rules and to provide greater
clarification and certainty to financial services providers. As
discussed below, the Bureau has begun the preparation of reports
assessing significant rules implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank
Act.
The Bureau is also working to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-
Frank Act, which amends ECOA to require financial institutions to
report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned,
minority-owned, and small businesses. This rulemaking could provide
critical information about how these businesses--which are critical
engines for economic growth--access credit. The Bureau held a public
hearing on this subject in spring 2017, and released a white paper
summarizing preliminary research on the small business lending market.
In May 2017, the Bureau also issued a Request for Information seeking
public comment on, among other things, the types of credit products
offered and the types of data currently collected by lenders in this
market and the potential complexity, cost of, and privacy issues
related to, small business data collection. The information received
will help the Bureau determine how to implement the rule effectively
and minimize burdens on lenders.
Addressing Market Failures, Facilitating Fair Competition Among
Financial Services Providers, and Improving Consumer Understanding
The Bureau is considering rules in places where there are
substantial market failures that make it difficult for consumers to
engage in informed decision making and otherwise protect their own
interests. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to focus
on activities that promote fair competition among financial services
providers, which itself has substantial benefits for consumers.
For example, the Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
June 2016, building on several years of research documenting consumer
harms from practices related to payday loans,
[[Page 1809]]
auto title loans, and other similar credit products. In particular, the
Bureau is concerned that product structure, lack of underwriting, and
certain other lender practices are interfering with consumer decision
making with regard to such products and trapping large numbers of
consumers in extended cycles of debt that they do not expect. The
Bureau is also concerned that certain lenders' payment collection
practices are causing substantial harm to consumers, including
substantial unexpected fees and heightened risk of losing their
checking accounts. The Bureau received more than one million comments
in response to the proposal and is carefully considering how best to
address concerns raised in the proposal in a manner consistent with the
Bureau's objectives under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau is also engaged in rulemaking activities regarding the
debt collection market, which continues to be a top source of
complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau is concerned that, because
consumers cannot choose their debt collectors or ``vote with their
feet,'' consumers have less ability to protect themselves from harmful
practices. In January 2017, the Bureau published the results of a
survey of consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The
Bureau has also received encouragement from industry to engage in
rulemaking to resolve conflicts in case law and address issues of
concern under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as
the application of the 40-year-old statute to modern communication
technologies. The Bureau released an outline of proposals under
consideration in July 2016, concerning practices by companies that are
``debt collectors'' under the FDCPA, in advance of convening a panel
under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small
Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with
representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the
rulemaking. The Bureau expects to release a proposed rule in late 2017
concerning FDCPA collectors' communications practices and consumer
disclosures. The Bureau intends to follow up separately at a later time
about concerns regarding information flows between creditors and FDCPA
collectors and about potential rules to govern creditors that collect
their own debts.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research
initiatives in preparation for a potential rulemaking regarding
overdraft programs on checking accounts. After several years of
research, the Bureau believes that there are consumer protection
concerns with regard to these programs. Consumers do not shop based on
overdraft fee amounts and policies, and the market for overdraft
services does not appear to be competitive. Under the current
regulatory regime consumers can opt in to permit their financial
institution to charge fees for ATM and point-of-sale debit overdrafts,
but the complexity of the system may complicate consumer decision
making. Despite widespread use of disclosure forms, the regime produces
substantially different opt-in rates across different depository
institutions and the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement work
indicates that some institutions are aggressively steering consumers to
opt in. The CFPB is engaged in consumer testing of revised opt-in forms
and considering whether other regulatory changes may be warranted to
enhance consumer decision making.
In addition, the Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that
will ensure meaningful supervision of non-bank financial services
providers in order to create a more level playing field for depository
and non-depository institutions. Under section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank
Act, the CFPB is authorized to supervise ``larger participants'' of
markets for various consumer financial products and services as defined
by Bureau rule. The Bureau has defined the threshold for larger
participants in several markets in past rulemakings, and is now working
to develop a proposed rule that would define non-bank ``larger
participants'' in the market for personal loans, including consumer
installment loans and vehicle title loans. The Bureau is also
considering whether rules to require registration of these or other
non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been
suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau's October 2016, rulemaking concerning prepaid financial
products also advanced fairness and consistency objectives by creating
a uniform disclosure regime and providing basic protections similar to
those enjoyed by users of debit cards and credit cards. In April 2017,
the Bureau extended the general effective date of the rule to April 1,
2018. In June 2017, the Bureau issued a proposal that would make
targeted changes to the 2016 prepaid rule to reduce implementation and
compliance burdens on the industry and ensure consumer understanding of
and access to these products. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule
in fall 2017.
Modernizing, Streamlining, and Clarifying Consumer Financial
Regulations
The Bureau's third group of activities concerns modernizing,
streamlining, and clarifying consumer financial regulations and other
activities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden and facilitate
consumer-friendly innovation and increased access to consumer financial
markets as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since most of the Federal
consumer financial laws that the Bureau administers were enacted in the
1960s and 1970s, there is often substantial demand for these activities
from both industry and consumer advocates alike.
The Bureau is also beginning work this fall on the first in a
series of reviews of existing regulations that it inherited from other
agencies through the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau had previously sought feedback on the inherited rules as a
whole, and identified and executed burden reduction projects from that
undertaking. The Bureau has largely completed those initial projects
and believes that the next logical step is to review individual
regulations--or portions of large regulations--in more detail to
identify opportunities to clarify ambiguities, address developments in
the marketplace, or modernize or streamline provisions. The Bureau
notes that other Federal financial services regulators have engaged in
these types of reviews over time and believes that such an initiative
would be a natural complement to its work to facilitate implementation
of new regulations.
For its first review, the Bureau expects to focus primarily on
Subparts B and G of Regulation Z, which implement TILA with respect to
open-end credit generally and credit cards in particular. As part of
this general effort, the Bureau is considering rules to modernize the
Bureau's database of credit card agreements to reduce burden on issuers
that submit credit card agreements to the Bureau and make the database
more useful for consumers and the general public. The Credit Card
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act)
requires credit card issuers to post their credit card agreements to
their internet site, and submit those agreements to the Bureau to be
posted on an internet site maintained by the Bureau. The Bureau
believes an improved submission process and database would be more
efficient for both industry and the Bureau and would allow consumers
and
[[Page 1810]]
the general public to access and analyze information more easily.
In addition to these rulemaking activities noted in the Unified
Agenda, the Bureau is conducting other activities to modernize,
streamline, and clarify consumer financial regulatory activities. For
example, section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically directs the
Bureau to assess the effectiveness of significant rules five years
after they are implemented, including seeking public comment. The
Bureau has sought public comment on three significant rules: The
remittance rule, the ability to repay rule, and the RESPA mortgage
servicing rule. The Bureau is currently reviewing those comments as
part of its work to develop the reports mandated by section 1022(d) of
the Dodd-Frank Act. The findings in these reports will help the Bureau
and the public evaluate the recommendations the Bureau received and
inform the Bureau's decisions whether adjustments to rules are
warranted. The Bureau has also added items to its long-term regulatory
agenda, including a potential rulemaking to modernize Regulation E,
which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and to
address issues of concern in connection with data aggregators, either
under existing regulatory regimes such as EFTA and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) or under the Dodd-Frank Act more generally. The
Bureau believes that technological and market developments may warrant
rulemaking under EFTA and FCRA to clarify the application of existing
statutes and regulations, modernize and streamline those laws, and
address emerging consumer protection concerns. The Bureau continues to
look at other methods of modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying its
regulations, consistent with the goal of reducing overall regulatory
burden.
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury
associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, among other
things, the CPSC:
Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when
other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where
required by statute;
obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective
products that present a substantial product hazard;
develops information and education campaigns about the
safety of consumer products;
participates in the development or revision of voluntary
product safety standards; and
follows statutory mandates.
Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding
which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC
gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk
presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8
require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following
criteria, when deciding the level of priority for any particular
project:
Frequency and severity of injury;
causality of injury;
chronic illness and future injuries;
costs and benefits of Commission action;
unforeseen nature of the risk;
vulnerability of the population at risk;
probability of exposure to the hazard; and
additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
Significant Regulatory Actions
Currently, the Commission is not considering taking action in the
next twelve months on any rules that would constitute a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the definition of the term in Executive Order
12866.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
I. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Background
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent
agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission
Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from ``unfair methods
of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in the
marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit
from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is
rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, provides consumers
the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the
marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Through
its consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that
consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in
the marketplace. At the same time, to ensure that consumers have a
choice of products and services at competitive prices and quality, the
marketplace must be policed for anticompetitive business practices and
to prohibit anticompetitive mergers. These two complementary missions
make the Commission unique insofar as it is the nation's only Federal
agency with this combination of statutory authority to protect
consumers.
The Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing
and enforcing regulations under a number of statutes, including 16
trade regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act and numerous
regulations issued pursuant to certain credit, financial and marketing
practice statutes \2\ and energy laws.\3\ The Commission also has
adopted a number of voluntary industry guides. Most of the regulations
and guides pertain to consumer protection matters and are intended to
ensure that consumers receive the information necessary to evaluate
competing products and make informed purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C.
7701-7713) and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101-6108).
\3\ For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776,
codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code, particularly 42
U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. 17021, 17301-
17305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the Background section, the Commission sets
out a brief overview of its ongoing law enforcement efforts, followed
by a more detailed list of current regulatory reform-related
initiatives and other focus areas.
(A) Law Enforcement Mission
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It
pursues its mandate to enhance competition and protect consumers
primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the FTC Act and other
statutes. This includes:
(1) Consumer Protection Enforcement. The agency has continued to
pursue its long-standing consumer protection mission by filing or
obtaining settlements in 56 consumer protection
[[Page 1811]]
matters in district court, reaching 21 administrative consent
agreements related to consumer protection, and distributing over $91
million in redress to more than two million consumers in 2017.
One recent example is the FTC's enforcement action along with its
law enforcement partners, the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Environmental Protection Agency, to compensate consumers who were
harmed by Volkswagen both because the company allegedly unfairly sold
cars with illegal defeat-emissions-testing devices and deceptively
advertised these cars with claims that they were ``clean.'' Under the
Commission's 2.0 liter and 3.0 liter settlements, Volkswagen will offer
consumers more than $11 billion in compensation.\4\ This is the largest
consumer refund program in the FTC's history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Amended Second Partial Stipulated Order for Permanent
Injunction and Monetary Judgment, FTC v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., No. 3:15-md-2672 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2017), available
at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/170517_volkwagen_ftc_final_order_.pdf; see also related proposed
consent decree between the United States Department of Justice and
the State of California and Volkswagen at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/871306/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company (Western Union), a global money services
business headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, agreed to pay $586
million to settle FTC and Department of Justice charges that the
company allowed scammers to use its money transfer system to collect
money from their victims. The FTC alleged that the company's failures,
including not taking effective action against complicit agents,
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers
since 2004. As part of this global settlement, the FTC also required
Western Union to implement an effective anti-fraud program. The
Department of Justice and the FTC will use the $586 million payment to
provide redress to defrauded consumers.
In a historic decision, an Illinois federal court ordered Dish
Network to pay $280 million in civil penalties and to stop alleged
violations of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule and other federal and
state laws. The Department of Justice filed charges on behalf of the
FTC and four states against the satellite TV provider. Dish allegedly
made millions of illegal calls, including to numbers on the Do Not Call
Registry, and used unscrupulous tactics to generate programming sales.
The court also ordered Dish to ensure its marketing practices comply
with the law. The civil penalties include a record-setting $168 million
to the federal government, with the remainder going to the states.
(2) Competition Enforcement. In FY2017, the agency pursued 29 law
enforcement actions, including 20 merger challenges and 9 non-merger
challenges.
In the Draft Kings/FanDuel matter, the parties abandoned their
planned merger after the Commission sought a preliminary injunction in
federal district court. The combination of the two largest daily
fantasy sports sites, DraftKings and FanDuel, would have controlled
more than ninety percent of the U.S. market for paid daily fantasy
sports contests, the FTC alleged. The FTC has also successfully
negotiated merger settlements requiring divestitures in a variety of
industries, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, animal
vaccines, and others.
The FTC, jointly with the Office of the Attorney General of North
Dakota, filed a complaint in federal court to block Sanford Health's
proposed acquisition of Mid Dakota Clinic, alleging that the deal would
violate antitrust law by significantly reducing competition for adult
primary care physician services, pediatric services, obstetrics and
gynecology services, and general surgery physician services in the
greater Bismarck, North Dakota and Mandan, North Dakota metropolitan
area.\5\ According to the complaint, Sanford and Mid Dakota are each
other's closest rivals in the four-county Bismarck-Mandan region of
North Dakota, an area with a population of 125,000. The agencies seek a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the deal
and to maintain the status quo pending an administrative trial on the
merits of the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, FTC and State of North Dakota v. Sanford Health, Sanford
Bismarck, and Mid Dakota Clinic, P.C., No. 1:17-cv-00133-DLH-CSM
(W.D. N.D. June 22, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/es/system/files/documents/cases/1710019sanfordfedcomplaint.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency also continues to focus on non-merger enforcement. For
example, the agency brought a case against ViroPharma Inc. alleging it
engaged in sham petitioning to delay the market entry of generic
competitors.\6\ The Commission also continues to challenge
anticompetitive reverse payment agreements between branded and generic
pharmaceutical mergers after a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court
in FTC v. Actavis supported the agency's antitrust enforcement in this
area. In January 2017, the Commission filed a stipulated injunction in
federal court in which Malinckrodt ARD Inc., formerly Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., agreed to settle Commission charges that it
monopolized the market for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs.
These drugs are typically the last line of defense in treating
infantile spasms, a rare and serious seizure disorder. According to the
Commission's complaint, the company purchased the rights to develop
Synacthen Depot, a drug that threatened the firm's existing monopoly in
the U.S. market. The Commission charged that the company undertook this
acquisition to prevent any other company from using the Synacthen
assets to develop a synthetic ACTH drug in the United States, thereby
preserving Questcor's monopoly and allowing it to raise and maintain
extremely high prices. Questcor raised its prices from $40 a vial to
more than $34,000 a vial between 2001 and 2017, when it faced no
competition for this critical infant medicine. To resolve this matter,
Malinckrodt ARD Inc. agreed to grant a license to Synacthen Depot to a
Commission-approved licensee and to pay $100 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v.
Shire ViroPharma, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00131-UNA (D. Del. May 25,
2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/121-0062/shire-viropharma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Regulatory Reform-Related Initiatives
In addition to consumer protection and competition enforcement
matters, the agency is leading several regulatory reform initiatives
under the leadership of Acting Chairman Ohlhausen. Her priorities in
this regard are threefold: Promoting economic liberty, reforming
regulation, and increasing agency transparency:
(1) Economic Liberty Task Force. In February 2017, Acting Chairman
Ohlhausen established an FTC Economic Liberty Task Force to collaborate
with state leaders and other stakeholders on occupational licensing
reform. Nearly thirty percent of American jobs require a license today,
up from less than five percent in the 1950s. For some professions,
licensing is necessary to protect the public against legitimate health
and safety concerns. But, many more occupations could be practiced
safely and effectively with fewer, or no, licensing requirements.
In many situations, the expansion of occupational licensing
threatens economic liberty. Unnecessary licensing restrictions erect
significant barriers and impose costs that cause real harm to American
workers, employers, consumers, and the economy as a whole, with no
measurable benefits to consumers or society. These restrictions can:
[[Page 1812]]
Close the door on job opportunities for people who are
ready to work, especially the nation's most economically disadvantaged
citizens;