83 FR 57803 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2018
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 222 (November 16, 2018)
Page Range
57803-57989
FR Document
2018-24084
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 2018 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 2018 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 Federal agencies and 66 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 57803-57989]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24084]
[[Page 57803]]
Vol. 83
Friday,
No. 222
November 16, 2018
Part II
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2018
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2018 /
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 57804]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2018
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 2018 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 2018 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans
of 28 Federal agencies and 66 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 2018 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 Agendas
Cabinet Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
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
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Railroad Retirement Board
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
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board
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 2018 Regulatory Plan
Agency Regulatory Plans
Cabinet Departments
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
[[Page 57805]]
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Other Executive Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
Office of Personnel Management
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Consumer 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 Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Other Executive Agencies
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Committee for Purchase From the People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Railroad Retirement Board
Small Business Administration
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Reserve System
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities.
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative
statement of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory priorities, and,
for the most part, (2) a description of the most important significant
regulatory and deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects
to issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year.
This edition includes the regulatory plans of 30 agencies.
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been
available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available
to the public at http://www.reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda
offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda
database to 1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda
includes regulatory agendas from 65 Federal agencies. Agencies of the
United States Congress are not included.
The fall 2018 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 Defense *
Department of Education *
Department of Housing and Urban Development *
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *
Other Executive Agencies
Agency for International Development
American Battle Monuments Commission
Commission on Civil Rights
Corporation for National and Community Service
Council on Environmental Quality
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
Federal Mediation Conciliation Service
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration *
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Mediation Board
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management *
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *
Presidio Trust
Social Security Administration *
Tennessee Valley Authority
Independent Agencies
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Transportation Safety Board
Postal Regulatory Commission
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
[[Page 57806]]
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 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
[[Page 57807]]
Federal Register. The Act specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has
resulted, or is likely to result, in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in that Act. The
Act provides that the Administrator of OIRA will make the final
determination as to whether a rule is major.
III. How are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?
The Regulatory Plan appears in part II in a daily edition of the
Federal Register. The Plan is a single document beginning with an
introduction, followed by a table of contents, followed by each
agency's section of the Plan. Following the Plan in the Federal
Register, as separate parts, are the regulatory flexibility agendas for
each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities or rules that have been selected for periodic review under
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda
appears as a separate part. The sections of the Plan and the parts of
the Unified Agenda are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet
departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, a joint authority (Agenda only); and independent regulatory
agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into subagencies. Each
printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's
printed entries that follow. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains
a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed
agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed
entries that follow.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of
regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the
agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory
actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing
information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's
regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the
particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the
next step.
3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as
the next step.
4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
5. Completed Actions--actions or reviews the agency has completed
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the
Agenda.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To
further differentiate these two 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,
[[Page 57808]]
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule is
similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule under 5
U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
(2) Other Significant
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered
Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency
anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that
are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be
included in the agency's regulatory plan.
(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither
Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/
Administrative/Other.
(4) Routine and Frequent
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring
application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations
and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
(5) Informational/Administrative/Other
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public
of the activity.
Major--whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L.
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final
determination as to whether a rule is major.
Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s)
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to
laws in addition to these citations.
CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations
that will be affected by the action.
Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available,
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and
potential costs and benefits of the action.
Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/19 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
2017.
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.
[[Page 57809]]
Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's
jurisdiction.
V. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation.
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the
Federal Register.
E.O.--An Executive order is a directive from the President to
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority.
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents,
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an
agency issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a
minimum: A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public
rulemaking proceeding;
A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is
proposed; and Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a
description of the subjects and issues involved.
PL (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress and
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example,
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: October 15, 2018.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
Introduction to the Fall 2018 Regulatory Plan
Regulatory reform is a cornerstone of President Trump's agenda for
economic growth. This Plan reaffirms the principles of individual
liberty and limited government essential to reform. It also highlights
the success of ongoing efforts, initiatives for improving
accountability, and the promotion of good regulatory practices.
Across the Trump Administration, real regulatory reform is
underway. As the agency examples throughout the Plan demonstrate, the
benefits of a more rational regulatory system are felt far and wide and
create opportunities for economic growth and development. Farmers can
more productively use their land. Small businesses can hire more
workers and provide more affordable healthcare. Innovators will be able
to pursue advances in autonomous vehicles, drones, and commercial space
exploration. Veterans enjoy expanded access to doctors through a
telehealth program. Infrastructure can be improved more quickly with
streamlined permitting requirements. These reforms and many others make
life better for all Americans through lower consumer prices, more jobs,
and, in the long run, improvements in well-being that result from the
advance of innovative new products and services.
Private choices of individuals and businesses should generally
prevail in a free society. Yet in modern times, the expansion of the
administrative state has placed undue burdens on the public, impeding
economic growth, technological innovation, and consumer choice. This
Administration has spearheaded an unprecedented effort to
[[Page 57810]]
restore appropriate checks on the regulatory state, ensuring that
agencies act within the boundaries of the law and in a manner that
yields the greatest benefits to the American people while imposing the
fewest burdens. Our policies focus on restoring political
accountability and protecting the constitutional values of due process
and fair notice. Government should respect the private decisions of
individuals and businesses unless a compelling need can be shown for
intervention, a longstanding principle affirmed in Executive Order
12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' September 30, 1993). We
approach regulation with humility, trusting Americans to direct their
energy and capital productively and to reap the benefits that result
from a free exchange of goods and ideas.
The Administration's regulatory agenda involves structural reforms
as well as the practical work of eliminating and revising regulations.
Agencies continue to advance the health and safety mandates that
Congress has entrusted to them and to revamp vital programs to increase
their effectiveness. At the same time, agencies are revising or
rescinding regulations that fail to address real-world problems, that
are needlessly burdensome, and that prevent Americans from advancing
innovative solutions. Our reform efforts emphasize the rule of law,
respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, and the limits of
agency authority.
Reducing Regulatory Burdens
At the outset, President Trump set forth a general mandate for
regulatory reform across the Administration. Consistent with legal
obligations, Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017) directs a two-fold
approach to reform: It requires that agencies eliminate two regulations
for each new significant regulation and also requires that agencies
offset any new regulatory costs. By requiring a reduction in the number
of regulations, the order incentivizes agencies to identify regulations
and guidance documents that do not provide sufficient benefits to the
public. Agencies have reduced or eliminated unnecessary requirements
large and small. For the first time in decades, Federal agencies have
decreased new regulatory costs, while continuing to pursue important
regulatory priorities.
Agencies have achieved historic and meaningful regulatory reform in
the first two years.
For fiscal year 2018, agencies achieved $23 billion in net
regulatory cost savings across the government.
Agencies issued 176 deregulatory actions (57 of which are
significant deregulatory actions) and 14 significant regulatory
actions.
These results expand and build upon the success of the
Administration's first year, for a total regulatory cost reduction of
$33 billion.
In addition to these impressive results, the agencies project $18
billion in regulatory cost savings for 2019. In addition, the ``Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule'' revises the greenhouse gas
standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger
cars and light trucks. The Department of Transportation and the
Environmental Protection Agency have proposed a range of options that
are projected to save between $120 and $340 billion in regulatory costs
and anticipate completion of the rule in fiscal year 2019. The momentum
for reform continues to accelerate as agencies complete substantial
deregulatory actions.
Promoting the Rule of Law: Political Accountability, Guidance
Documents, and Respecting Congress' Lawmaking Power
The Administration's regulatory reform is committed to the rule of
law, understood as respect for the constitutional structure as well as
the specific laws enacted by Congress. The Constitution establishes a
relatively simple framework for regulation. Congress is vested with
limited and enumerated legislative powers, which it may use to set
regulatory policy and establish the authority of agencies to issue
regulations. The President is vested with the executive power, which
includes overseeing and directing administration of the laws. Within
the framework and directions established by Congress, political
accountability for regulatory policy depends on presidential
responsibility and control. As Alexander Hamilton explained, ``Energy
in the executive is a leading character of good government. It is
essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks:
It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.''
The Federalist No. 70.
The annual Regulatory Plan has provided a longstanding form of
presidential accountability for the regulatory policy of federal
agencies as well as for the specific regulatory actions planned for the
forthcoming year. Through the process of reviewing the Plan and Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, OIRA helps agencies to
direct administrative action consistent with presidential priorities.
Agency heads explain their priorities through the narrative of the
Regulatory Plan and list specific deregulatory and regulatory actions
expected to be completed in the coming year. This process provides an
important gatekeeping role to ensure agencies pursue only those actions
consistent with law and that have the support of the heads of agencies
and ultimately the President. Likewise, review of draft regulatory
actions through Executive Order 12866 advances good regulatory policy
consistent with legal requirements, sound analysis, and presidential
priorities.
Faithful execution of the laws also includes respect for the
lawmaking power of Congress. Although Congress often confers
substantial discretion on agencies, OIRA works with agencies to limit
expansive interpretations of executive authority and to regulate within
the boundaries of the law. Carefully examining statutory authority and
keeping agencies within the limits set by Congress protects against
executive agencies exercising the legislative power. OIRA also works
with agencies to ensure compliance with the Administrative Procedure
Act. The requirements of public notice and opportunity for comment
bolster the legitimacy of agency action and can provide refinements
that improve the ultimate policy chosen by an agency.
Moreover, OIRA is looking closely at existing statutory
requirements for limiting administrative excess across federal
agencies, including within the historically independent agencies. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, all federal agencies must comply with
specific requirements before collecting information from the public.
OIRA plays an important role in reviewing forms that collect
information, verifying that they have practical utility and are as
minimally burdensome as possible. Reduction of paperwork burdens plays
an important role in eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, or
conflicting regulatory requirements.
The Administration's commitment to the rule of law finds expression
in other initiatives, such as restoring the proper use of guidance
documents. While guidance documents may provide needed clarification of
existing legal obligations, they have sometimes been stretched to
impose new obligations. OIRA and the White House Counsel's Office have
repeatedly affirmed the importance of due process and fair notice in
regulatory policy and worked closely with agencies to prevent the
misuse of guidance documents. Agencies should not surprise the public
[[Page 57811]]
with new requirements through an informal memo, speech, or blog post.
When agencies impose new regulatory obligations, they must follow the
appropriate administrative procedures.
Through the review process for significant guidance documents, OIRA
has identified proposed agency guidance that should be undertaken only
through notice and comment rulemaking. Some agencies have withdrawn
expansive guidance from the previous administration and are replacing
it with rulemaking, rather than simply a revised guidance document.
Rulemaking undoubtedly requires more agency time and resources;
however, it also provides fair notice and allows input from the public,
which ultimately results in more lawful and predictable regulatory
policy.
Other agencies are also taking important steps. The Department of
Justice clarified that guidance documents would not be used for
enforcement purposes. Several agencies subsequently followed this
principle, including a group of historically independent financial
regulatory agencies. Other agencies are in the process of revising
their guidance policies to promote greater accountability in the
development, promulgation, and access to guidance documents.
Ensuring the proper use of guidance documents; eliminating outdated
or stale guidance; requiring internal checks that enhance
accountability for guidance; and providing greater transparency and
online access to guidance documents are steps forward in promoting
sound regulatory policy across the federal government. OIRA will
continue to work with agencies to improve and refine their guidance
practices.
Good Regulatory Practices: Transparency, Coordination, and Analysis
Regulatory reform in the Trump Administration includes the
promotion and expansion of longstanding good regulatory practices such
as transparency, coordination, and cost-benefit analysis. These
practices improve regulatory outcomes irrespective of the policy
preferences of an agency or administration.
Transparency in the regulatory process provides one of the most
important checks on administrative agencies by allowing the public to
have notice of regulatory actions and opportunities for comment in the
administrative process. This Administration has taken specific steps to
improve transparency.
For example, OIRA collaborates with agencies to make the Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions a more accurate
reflection of what agencies plan to pursue in the coming year. Agencies
must make every effort to include actions they plan to pursue, because
if an item is not on the Agenda, under Executive Order 13771, an agency
cannot move forward unless it obtains a waiver or the action is
required by law. A clear and accurate Agenda helps avoid unfair
surprise and achieves greater predictability of upcoming actions.
This Administration has also published the so-called ``Inactive
List,'' a list of regulations contemplated by agencies, but previously
not made public in the Agenda. Agencies continue to review these lists
and remove actions they no longer plan to pursue. Publication of the
list promotes agency accountability for all regulatory actions under
consideration and a more accurate picture of regulations in the
pipeline.
Furthermore, in the process of implementing the historic reforms of
Executive Order 13771, OIRA published detailed information about the
cost allowances, cost savings, and specific actions counted as
regulatory and deregulatory. OIRA issued early guidance on how the
Executive Order would be implemented. Drawing from the successful
experience of similar deregulatory programs in the United Kingdom and
Canada, the guidance explained that even small deregulatory actions
would be counted in order to incentivize agencies to eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens of all sizes. This transparency allows
the public to understand the accounting methodology and the choices
made to encourage the greatest possible reform efforts from the
agencies.
Coordination is an important component of the OIRA regulatory
review process. Coordination facilitates consistent application of
presidential priorities, legal interpretation, and regulatory policy
across different agencies. Centralized review allows the Administration
to advance broader principles, such as concern for the rule of law, due
process, and fair notice, as well as to reduce regulatory costs across
the board.
Through the review process, agencies and senior officials within
the Executive Office of the President have an opportunity to comment on
draft regulations. These reviewers flag policy concerns or problems of
duplication, inconsistency, and inefficiency. Such coordination allows
for careful consideration of competing priorities and how they should
be balanced across the Executive Branch. The review process also allows
for coordination in other contexts, such as when one agency's rule
implicates the programs or legal authorities of another. Interagency
review can ameliorate problems arising from overlapping statutory
mandates. Review can also strengthen the legal foundation and the
supporting analysis of rules--bolstering their effectiveness and also
their ability to survive legal challenge.
The historically independent agencies sometimes participate in the
review process when a regulation raises issues that implicate their
jurisdiction. Because these agencies are not generally subject to other
White House coordination mechanisms, the review process provides an
opportunity to ensure greater consistency across all agencies within
the Executive Branch.
Finally, cost-benefit analysis must justify the need for
regulation. As Executive Order 12866 recognizes, private choices of
individuals and businesses are the baseline in the American system of
government. To warrant departure from this baseline, regulatory actions
must be consistent with statutory authority and should have benefits
that substantially exceed costs.
Careful analysis that accurately captures both the benefits and
costs of regulation is essential to achieving good regulatory policy.
Consideration of alternatives and an assessment of their costs and
benefits serves an important function by providing transparency for
regulatory decisions and information that can inform public comment on
the impact of regulatory alternatives before a rule is finalized. While
anticipating and quantifying the costs and benefits of regulations pose
challenges in some contexts, OIRA will continue to work closely with
agencies to improve their analyses.
One of the practical consequences of Executive Order 13771 is that
agencies have a new and meaningful incentive to engage in retrospective
review of regulations, which President Obama called for in Executive
Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' January
18, 2011). When issuing a rule, an agency can only predict the costs
and benefits. Periodically reviewing the actual costs and benefits of
regulations allows agencies to modify rules for greater effectiveness
or to repeal rules that are unnecessary or counterproductive.
[[Page 57812]]
Review of Tax Regulations Under Executive Order 12866
Administration-wide regulatory reform efforts have been coupled
with targeted reforms in specific high-burden areas. For example, the
President issued Executive Order 13789 (``Identifying and Reducing Tax
Regulatory Burdens,'' April 21, 2017), directing the Department of the
Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens because
America's ``Federal tax system should be simple, fair, efficient, and
pro-growth.'' In addition to other measures, the President called for a
review of whether tax regulations should go through the centralized
OIRA regulatory review process. Tax regulations were previously exempt
from this process, in part contributing to the problem of burdensome,
complicated, and inefficient tax regulatory policy identified by
Executive Order 13789.
After conducting this review, the Office of Management and Budget
and the Department of the Treasury signed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), ``Review of Tax Regulations under Executive Order 12866'' (April
11, 2018). The MOA recognizes the importance of presidential oversight
and accountability, particularly where tax regulations reflect the
exercise of discretion, raise important legal or policy questions, or
impose substantial costs on the public. Tax regulations uniquely impact
all Americans and have significant consequences for investment,
economic growth, and innovation. The OIRA review process provides an
important check to ensure that tax regulations are consistent with the
President's priorities for a ``simple, fair, efficient, and pro-
growth'' tax system.
The historic reforms enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)
require Treasury to issue a number of regulations. The MOA provides for
the possibility of expedited review of TCJA regulations in order to
provide timely guidance and information to the public. Over the past
few months, Treasury and OIRA have worked closely together to improve
tax regulations, ensuring that regulations are consistent with law,
demonstrate benefits that exceed the costs, and impose the fewest
possible burdens on the public. The review process encourages greater
transparency of the impacts of the regulation, highlighting where the
agency exercises discretion and the anticipated burdens placed on the
public, including paperwork and other compliance burdens. When Treasury
provides this information in a proposed rule, the public has a more
informed basis from which to comment on the rule and share information
about the consequences of particular regulatory choices. Moreover, the
review process facilitates coordination with other agencies to avoid
conflict with other administration priorities.
The improvement of tax regulations demonstrates a specific success
in the Administration's regulatory reform agenda. It also reaffirms the
value of the OIRA centralized review process for promoting presidential
priorities and good regulatory practices such as transparency,
coordination, and robust cost-benefit analysis.
Conclusion
Consistent with its longstanding commitment to the principles of
good regulatory policy, OIRA works closely with agencies to advance
regulatory policy that is consistent with law and the President's
priorities and yields substantial net benefits for the public. The
first two years of the Administration have produced unparalleled
reform, and we project even more significant results in the coming
year.
Neomi Rao,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget
Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. NOP; Strengthening 0581-AD09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Organic Enforcement.
2............................. National Bioengineered 0581-AD54 Final Rule Stage.
Food Disclosure Standard.
3............................. Animal Welfare; 0579-AE35 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments to Licensing
Provisions and to
Requirements for Dogs.
4............................. Importation, Interstate 0579-AE47 Proposed Rule Stage.
Movement, and Release
Into the Environment of
Certain Genetically
Engineered Organisms.
5............................. Supplemental Nutrition 0584-AE57 Proposed Rule Stage.
Assistance Program:
Requirements for Able-
Bodied Adults Without
Dependents.
6............................. Providing Regulatory 0584-AE61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Flexibility for
Retailers in the
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
(SNAP).
7............................. Revision of Categorical 0584-AE62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Eligibility in the
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
(SNAP).
8............................. Reform Provisions for the 0584-AE64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program's
Quality Control System.
9............................. Child Nutrition Programs: 0584-AE53 Final Rule Stage.
Flexibilities for Milk,
Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements.
10............................ Egg Products Inspection 0583-AC58 Final Rule Stage.
Regulations.
11............................ Modernization of Swine 0583-AD62 Final Rule Stage.
Slaughter Inspection.
12............................ Update and Clarification 0596-AD32 Prerule Stage.
of the Locatable
Minerals Regulations.
13............................ Oil and Gas Resource 0596-AD33 Prerule Stage.
Revision.
14............................ Servicing Regulation for 0572-AC41 Final Rule Stage.
the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS)
Telecommunications
Programs.
15............................ oneRD Guaranteed Loan 0572-AC43 Final Rule Stage.
Regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57813]]
Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16............................ Revisions to the Export 0694-AF47 Final Rule Stage.
Administration
Regulations: Control of
Firearms and Related
Articles the President
Determines No Longer
Warrant Control Under
the United States
Munitions List.
17............................ Magnuson-Stevens Act; 0648-BH73 Proposed Rule Stage.
Fishery Management
Councils; Financial
Disclosure and Recusal.
18............................ Magnuson-Stevens 0648-BH87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act;
Traceability Information
Program for Seafood.
19............................ Taking and Importing 0648-BB38 Final Rule Stage.
Marine Mammals: Taking
Marine Mammals
Incidental to
Geophysical Surveys
Related to Oil and Gas
Activities in the Gulf
of Mexico.
20............................ Commerce Trusted Trader 0648-BG51 Final Rule Stage.
Program.
21............................ Setting and Adjusting 0651-AD31 Proposed Rule Stage.
Patent Fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22............................ Contractor Purchasing 0750-AJ48 Proposed Rule Stage.
System Review Threshold
(DFARS Case 2017-D038).
23............................ Brand Name or Equal 0750-AJ50 Proposed Rule Stage.
(DFARS Case 2017-D040).
24............................ Submission of Summary 0750-AJ42 Final Rule Stage.
Subcontract Report
(DFARS Case 2017-D005).
25............................ Regulatory Program of the 0710-AA75 Prerule Stage.
Army Corps of Engineers
Tribal Consultation and
National Historic
Preservation Act
compliance.
26............................ Natural Disaster 0710-AA78 Proposed Rule Stage.
Procedures:
Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery Activities
of the Corps of
Engineers.
27............................ Definition of ``Waters of 0710-AA80 Proposed Rule Stage.
the United States''.
28............................ Compensatory Mitigation 0710-AA83 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Losses of Aquatic
Resources--Review and
Approval of Mitigation
Banks and In-Lieu Fee
Programs.
29............................ Modification of 0710-AA84 Proposed Rule Stage.
Nationwide Permits.
30............................ Policy for Domestic, 0710-AA72 Final Rule Stage.
Municipal, and
Industrial Water Supply
Uses of Reservoir
Projects Operated by the
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
31............................ Establishment of TRICARE 0720-AB70 Final Rule Stage.
Select and Other TRICARE
Reforms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1870-AA14 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or
Activities Receiving
Federal Financial
Assistance.
33............................ State Authorization and 1840-AD36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Related Issues.
34............................ Accreditation and Related 1840-AD37 Proposed Rule Stage.
Issues.
35............................ Ensuring Student Access 1840-AD38 Proposed Rule Stage.
to High Quality and
Innovative Postsecondary
Educational Programs.
36............................ Eligibility of Faith- 1840-AD40 Proposed Rule Stage.
Based Entities and
Activities-Title IV
Programs.
37............................ TEACH Grants............. 1840-AD44 Proposed Rule Stage.
38............................ Institutional 1840-AD26 Final Rule Stage.
Accountability.
39............................ Program Integrity; 1840-AD31 Final Rule Stage.
Gainful Employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AD15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Residential Conventional
Cooking Products.
41............................ Procedures, 1904-AD38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Interpretations, and
Policies for
Consideration of New or
Revised Energy
Conservation Standards
for Consumer Products.
42............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AE26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Program: Definition for
General Service Lamps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43............................ HIPAA Privacy: Request 0945-AA00 Prerule Stage.
for Information on
Changes to Support, and
Remove Barriers to,
Coordinated Care.
44............................ HIPAA Privacy Rule: 0945-AA09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Presumption of Good
Faith of Health Care
Providers.
45............................ Protecting Statutory 0945-AA10 Final Rule Stage.
Conscience Rights in
Health Care; Delegations
of Authority.
[[Page 57814]]
46............................ Revising Outdated 0930-AA27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements for Opioid
Treatment Providers
(OTPS).
47............................ Coordinating Care and 0930-AA32 Proposed Rule Stage.
Information Sharing in
the Treatment of
Substance Use Disorders.
48............................ Food Standards: General 0910-AC54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Principles and Food
Standards Modernization
(Reopening of Comment
Period).
49............................ Mammography Quality 0910-AH04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards Act;
Amendments to Part 900
Regulations.
50............................ Medical Device De Novo 0910-AH53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Classification Process.
51............................ Nonprescription Drug 0910-AH62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Product With an
Additional Condition for
Nonprescription Use.
52............................ Format and Content of 0910-AH89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Reports Intended to
Demonstrate Substantial
Equivalence.
53............................ Nutrient Content Claims, 0910-AI13 Proposed Rule Stage.
Definition of Term:
Healthy.
54............................ Compliance With Statutory 0937-AA07 Final Rule Stage.
Program Integrity
Requirements.
55............................ Requirements for Long- 0938-AT36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Term Care Facilities:
Regulatory Provisions to
Promote Program
Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden
Reduction (CMS-3347-P).
56............................ CY 2020 Notice of Benefit 0938-AT37 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Payment Parameters
(CMS-9926-P).
57............................ Exchange Program 0938-AT53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Integrity (CMS-9922-P).
58............................ Policy and Technical 0938-AT59 Proposed Rule Stage.
Changes to the Medicare
Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription
Drug Benefit Programs
for Contract Year 2020
(CMS-4185-P).
59............................ Modernizing and 0938-AT64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Clarifying the Physician
Self-Referral
Regulations (CMS-1720-P).
60............................ Adoption and Foster Care 0970-AC72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Analysis and Reporting
System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61............................ EB-5 Immigrant Investor 1615-AC26 Prerule Stage.
Program Realignment.
62............................ Inadmissibility on Public 1615-AA22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Charge Grounds.
63............................ Registration Requirement 1615-AB71 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Petitioners Seeking
To File H-1B Petitions
on Behalf of Cap Subject
Aliens.
64............................ EB-5 Immigrant Investor 1615-AC11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Regional Center Program.
65............................ Strengthening the H-1B 1615-AC13 Proposed Rule Stage.
Nonimmigrant Visa
Classification Program.
66............................ U.S. Citizenship and 1615-AC14 Proposed Rule Stage.
Immigration Services
Biometrics Collection
for Consistent,
Efficient, and Effective
Operations.
67............................ Removing H-4 Dependent 1615-AC15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Spouses from the Class
of Aliens Eligible for
Employment Authorization.
68............................ Electronic Processing of 1615-AC20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Immigration Benefit
Requests.
69............................ Updating Adjustment of 1615-AC22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Status Procedures for
More Efficient
Processing and Immigrant
Visa Usage.
70............................ Improvements to the 1615-AC23 Proposed Rule Stage.
Medical Certification
for Disability
Exceptions Processing.
71............................ Credible Fear Reform..... 1615-AC24 Proposed Rule Stage.
72............................ Employment Authorization 1615-AC27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Documents for Asylum
Applicants.
73............................ EB-5 Immigrant Investor 1615-AC07 Final Rule Stage.
Program Modernization.
74............................ Removal of Certain 1625-AC48 Proposed Rule Stage.
International Convention
on Standards of
Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978, as
Amended (STCW) Training
Requirements.
75............................ TWIC Reader Requirements; 1625-AC47 Final Rule Stage.
Delay of Effective Date.
76............................ Collection of Biometric 1651-AB12 Final Rule Stage.
Data From Aliens Upon
Entry To and Exit From
the United States.
77............................ 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.
78............................ Vetting of Certain 1652-AA69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
79............................ Amending Vetting 1652-AA70 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements for
Employees With Access to
a Security
Identification Display
Area (SIDA).
80............................ Protection of Sensitive 1652-AA08 Final Rule Stage.
Security Information.
81............................ Flight Training for 1652-AA35 Final Rule Stage.
Aliens and Other
Designated Individuals;
Security Awareness
Training for Flight
School Employees.
82............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Final Rule Stage.
Surface Transportation
Employees.
83............................ Apprehension, Processing, 1653-AA75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Care and Custody of
Alien Minors and
Unaccompanied Alien
Children.
84............................ Establishing a Maximum 1653-AA78 Proposed Rule Stage.
Period of Authorized
Stay for F-1 and Other
Nonimmigrants.
85............................ Adjusting Program Fees 1653-AA74 Final Rule Stage.
for the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program.
86............................ Factors Considered When 1660-AA83 Final Rule Stage.
Evaluating a Governor's
Request for Individual
Assistance for a Major
Disaster.
87............................ Update to FEMA's 1660-AA91 Final Rule Stage.
Regulations on
Rulemaking Procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57815]]
Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88............................ Enhancing and 2501-AD87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Streamlining the
Implementation of
``Section 3''
Requirements for
Creating Economic
Opportunities for Low-
and Very Low-Income
Persons and Eligible
Businesses.
89............................ Project Approval for 2502-AJ30 Final Rule Stage.
Single Family
Condominium (FR-5715).
90............................ Affirmatively Furthering 2529-AA97 Prerule Stage.
Fair Housing
Streamlining and
Enhancement (FR-6123).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91............................ Revisions to the 1082-AA01 Proposed Rule Stage
Requirements for
Exploratory Drilling on
the Arctic Outer
Continental Shelf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92............................ Bump-Stock-Type Devices.. 1140-AA52 Final Rule Stage.
93............................ Implementation of the 1117-AB45 Proposed Rule Stage.
Provision of the
Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act of 2016
Relating to the Partial
Filling of Prescriptions
for Schedule II
Controlled Substances.
94............................ Procedures for Asylum.... 1125-AA87 Proposed Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95............................ Defining and Delimiting 1235-AA20 Proposed Rule Stage.
the Exemptions for
Executive,
Administrative,
Professional, Outside
Sales and Computer
Employees.
96............................ Regular and Basic Rates 1235-AA24 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
97............................ Joint Employment Under 1235-AA26 Proposed Rule Stage.
the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
98............................ Labor Certification 1205-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Process for Temporary
Agricultural Employment
in the United States (H-
2A workers).
99............................ Health Reimbursement 1210-AB87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Arrangements and Other
Account-Based Group
Health Plans.
100........................... Definition of an 1210-AB88 Proposed Rule Stage.
``Employer'' Under
Section 3(5) of ERISA--
Association Retirement
Plans and Other Multiple
Employer Plans.
101........................... Standards Improvement 1218-AC67 Final Rule Stage.
Project IV.
102........................... Tracking of Workplace 1218-AD17 Final Rule Stage.
Injuries and Illnesses.
103........................... Occupational Exposure to 1218-AD21 Final Rule Stage.
Beryllium and Beryllium
Compounds in
Construction and
Shipyard Sectors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104........................... Processing Buy America 2105-AE79 Proposed Rule Stage.
Waivers Based on Non
availability.
105........................... Registration and Marking 2120-AK82 Final Rule Stage.
Requirements for Small
Unmanned Aircraft.
106........................... Removing Regulatory 2127-AM00 Prerule Stage.
Barriers for Automated
Driving Systems.
107........................... The Safer Affordable Fuel- 2127-AL76 Proposed Rule Stage.
Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles Rule for Model
Years 2021-2026
Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks.
108........................... Passenger Equipment 2130-AC46 Final Rule Stage.
Safety Standards
Amendments.
109........................... Pipeline Safety: Class 2137-AF29 Prerule Stage.
Location Requirements.
110........................... Hazardous Materials: 2137-AF20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Enhanced Safety
Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported by
Aircraft.
111........................... Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE66 Final Rule Stage.
of Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
112........................... Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE72 Final Rule Stage.
of Gas Transmission
Pipelines, MAOP
Reconfirmation,
Expansion of Assessment
Requirements and Other
Related Amendments.
113........................... Hazardous Materials: Oil 2137-AF08 Final Rule Stage.
Spill Response Plans and
Information Sharing for
High-Hazard Flammable
Trains (FAST Act).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57816]]
Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114........................... Veterans Community Walk- 2900-AQ47 Proposed Rule Stage.
in Care.
115........................... Economic Growth, 2900-AQ42 Final Rule Stage.
Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act
(the Act), Public Law
115-174, 132 Stat. 1296.
116........................... Veterans Health 2900-AQ44 Final Rule Stage.
Administration Benefits
Claims, Appeals, and Due
Process.
117........................... Veterans Care Agreements. 2900-AQ45 Final Rule Stage.
118........................... Veterans Community Care 2900-AQ46 Final Rule Stage.
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119........................... Reclassification of Major 2060-AM75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sources as Area Sources
Under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.
120........................... Emission Guidelines for 2060-AT67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Existing Electric
Utility Generating
Units; Revisions to
Emission Guideline
Implementing
Regulations; Revisions
to New Source Review
Program.
121........................... Prevention of Significant 2060-AT89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR): Project
Emissions Accounting.
122........................... Oil and Natural Gas 2060-AT90 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sector: Emission
Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources Review.
123........................... Mercury and Air Toxics 2060-AT99 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Power
Plants Residual Risk and
Technology Review and
Cost Review.
124........................... The Safer Affordable Fuel- 2060-AU09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles Rule for Model
Years 2021-2026
Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks.
125........................... Regulation of Persistent, 2070-AK34 Proposed Rule Stage.
Bioaccumulative, and
Toxic Chemicals Under
TSCA Section 6(h).
126........................... Pesticides; Certification 2070-AK37 Proposed Rule Stage.
of Pesticide Applicators
Rule; Reconsideration of
the Minimum Age
Requirements.
127........................... Pesticides; Agricultural 2070-AK43 Proposed Rule Stage.
Worker Protection
Standard;
Reconsideration of
Several Requirements.
128........................... Increasing Consistency 2010-AA12 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Transparency in
Considering Costs and
Benefits in the
Rulemaking Process.
129........................... Hazardous and Solid Waste 2050-AG98 Proposed Rule Stage.
Management System:
Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues From
Electric Utilities:
Amendments to the
National Minimum
Criteria (Phase 2).
130........................... National Primary Drinking 2040-AF15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
131........................... National Primary Drinking 2040-AF28 Proposed Rule Stage.
Water Regulations:
Regulation of
Perchlorate.
132........................... Revised Definition of 2040-AF75 Proposed Rule Stage.
``Waters of the United
States''.
133........................... Effluent Limitations 2040-AF77 Proposed Rule Stage.
Guidelines and Standards
for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point
Source Category.
134........................... Peak Flows Management.... 2040-AF81 Proposed Rule Stage.
135........................... Clean Water Act Section 2040-AF88 Proposed Rule Stage.
404(c) Regulatory
Revision.
136........................... Review of the Primary 2060-AT68 Final Rule Stage.
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for
Sulfur Oxides.
137........................... Renewable Fuel Volume 2060-AT93 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for 2019 and
Biomass-Based Diesel
(BBD) Volume for 2020.
138........................... Review of Dust-Lead 2070-AJ82 Final Rule Stage.
Hazard Standards and the
Definition of Lead-Based
Paint.
139........................... Service Fees for the 2070-AK27 Final Rule Stage.
Administration of the
Toxic Substances Control
Act.
140........................... Clean Water Act Hazardous 2050-AG87 Final Rule Stage.
Substances Spill
Prevention.
141........................... Accidental Release 2050-AG95 Final Rule Stage.
Prevention Requirements:
Risk Management Programs
Under the Clean Air Act;
Reconsideration of
Amendments.
142........................... Hazardous and Solid Waste 2050-AH01 Final Rule Stage.
Management System:
Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues From
Electric Utilities:
Amendments to the
National Minimum
Criteria (Phase 1, Part
2).
143........................... Definition of ``Waters of 2040-AF74 Final Rule Stage.
the United States''--
Recodification of
Preexisting Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB10 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
145........................... Amendments to Regulations 3046-AB11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Under the Genetic
Information
Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57817]]
General Services Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
146........................... General Services 3090-AJ64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Administration
Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
G506, Adoption of
Construction Project
Delivery Method
Involving Early Industry
Engagement.
147........................... General Services 3090-AJ84 Proposed Rule Stage.
Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G511, Contract
Requirements for GSA
Information Systems.
148........................... General Services 3090-AJ85 Proposed Rule Stage.
Administration
Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G515, Cyber Incident
Reporting.
149........................... Federal Permitting 3090-AJ88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Improvement Steering
Council (FPISC); FPISC
Case 2018-001; Fees for
Governance, Oversight,
and Processing of
Environmental Reviews
and Authorizations.
150........................... GSAR Case 2008-G517, 3090-AI68 Final Rule Stage.
Cooperative Purchasing--
Acquisition of Security
and Law Enforcement
Related Goods and
Services (Schedule 84)
by State and Local
Governments Through
Federal Supply Schedules.
151........................... General Services 3090-AJ41 Final Rule Stage.
Administration
Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2013-
G502, Federal Supply
Schedule Contract
Administration.
152........................... General Services 3090-AK03 Final Rule Stage.
Administration
Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2019-
G501, Ordering
Procedures for
Commercial e-Commerce
Portals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153........................... Detection and Avoidance 2700-AE38 Proposed Rule Stage.
of Counterfeit Parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Personnel Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154........................... Freedom of Information 3206-AK53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Act (FOIA) Regulations.
155........................... Direct-Hire Authority for 3206-AN65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Agency Chief Information
Officers.
156........................... Administrative Law Judges 3206-AN72 Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157........................... Small Business HUBZone 3245-AG38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Program and Government
Contracting Programs.
158........................... Women-Owned Small 3245-AG75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Business and
Economically
Disadvantaged Women-
Owned Small Business--
Certification.
159........................... Implementation of the 3245-AH05 Proposed Rule Stage.
Small Business 7(a)
Lending Oversight Reform
Act of 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG65 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Digestive
Disorders,
Cardiovascular
Disorders, and Skin
Disorders.
161........................... Removing Inability to 0960-AH86 Proposed Rule Stage.
Communicate in English
as an Education Category.
162........................... Newer and Stronger 0960-AH91 Proposed Rule Stage.
Penalties (Conforming
Changes).
163........................... Privacy Act Exemption: 0960-AH97 Proposed Rule Stage.
Personnel Security and
Suitability Program
Files.
164........................... References to Social 0960-AI04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Security and Medicare in
Electronic
Communications.
165........................... Availability of 0960-AI07 Proposed Rule Stage.
Information and Records
to the Public.
166........................... Setting the Manner for 0960-AI09 Proposed Rule Stage.
the Appearance of
Parties and Witnesses at
a Hearing.
167........................... 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.
168........................... Hearings Held by 0960-AI25 Proposed Rule Stage.
Administrative Appeals
Judges of the Appeals
Council.
169........................... Rules Regarding the 0960-AI27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Frequency and Notice of
Continuing Disability
Reviews.
170........................... Privacy and Disclosure of 0960-AI38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Official Records and
Information.
171........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG38 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Musculoskeletal
Disorders (3318P).
172........................... Privacy Act Exemption: 0960-AI08 Final Rule Stage.
Social Security
Administration Violence
Evaluation and Reporting
System (SSAvers).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57818]]
Consumer Product Safety Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173........................... Regulatory Options for 3041-AC31 Final Rule Stage.
Table Saws.
174........................... Portable Generators...... 3041-AC36 Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
175........................... Low-Level Radioactive 3150-AI92 Proposed Rule Stage.
Waste Disposal [NRC-2011-
0012].
176........................... Regulatory Improvements 3150-AJ59 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Production and
Utilization Facilities
Transitioning to
Decommissioning [NRC-
2015-0070].
177........................... Cyber Security at Fuel 3150-AJ64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Cycle Facilities [NRC-
2015-0179].
178........................... American Society of 3150-AJ74 Proposed Rule Stage.
Mechanical Engineers
2015-2017 Code Editions
Incorporation by
Reference [NRC-2016-
0082].
179........................... Approval of American 3150-AJ93 Proposed Rule Stage.
Society of Mechanical
Engineers Code Cases,
Revision 38 [NRC-2017-
0024].
180........................... Revision of Fee 3150-AJ99 Proposed Rule Stage.
Schedules: Fee Recovery
for FY 2019 [NRC-2017-
0032].
181........................... Mitigation of Beyond 3150-AJ49 Final Rule Stage.
Design Basis Events
(MBDBE) [NRC-2014-0240].
182........................... Advanced Power Reactor 3150-AJ67 Final Rule Stage.
1400 (APR-1400) Design
Certification [NRC-2015-
0224].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. ??-????? Filed ??-??-??; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ongoing regulatory reform
strategy remains one of the cornerstones for creating a culture of
consistent, efficient service to our customers, while reducing burdens
and improving efficiency. Accordingly, USDA's fall 2018 Regulatory
Agenda reflects these priorities, including those administrative
efficiencies such as streamlining and one-stop shopping. Moreover,
these USDA 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] 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
2019.
[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 like seeking direct public feedback through our Tell
Sonny initiative. 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. Moreover, reforms like the consolidation of administrative
functions at the mission area level eliminate inefficiencies and allow
the Department to best support the needs of our customers. Through the
implementation of these improvements, USDA will be better positioned to
remove obstacles, and give agricultural 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.
Farm Bill Implementation: Legislation covering major commodity
support programs and crop insurance, trade, conservation, rural
development, nutrition assistance and other programs (the Farm Bill)
expires at the end of fiscal year 2018. Plans for implementation to any
new or modified programs reauthorized in the new Farm Bill will be
considered upon enactment and regulatory agenda priorities adjusted
accordingly. USDA notes that Farm Bill implementation will allow us the
opportunity to modify existing regulations while introducing program
reforms to ease the burden on our customers and improve program
outcomes.
Executive Order 13777--Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda
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 2018 fall Regulatory Agenda. These actions were further
evaluated to determine which rules should be made a priority based on
the impact of their proposals and the Department's ability to finalize
the action in FY 2019. 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
[[Page 57819]]
(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. Through the end of June 2018,
USDA had received and reviewed over 4,000 public comments on
recommended reforms, including requests from stakeholders to extend the
public comment period past its one-year time period. Accordingly, USDA
has extended the public comment period through July 18, 2019. While
comments to the notice do not bind USDA to any further actions, all
submissions are reviewed and inform actions to repeal, replace, or
modify existing regulations.
Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
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 2018 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 72 rules, of which 34 rules are not subject to the
offsetting or deregulatory requirements of Executive Order 13771. Of
the remaining 38 rules, 32 are deregulatory and six are regulatory. Of
the 32 deregulatory actions, USDA has identified 16 final rules that
will be completed in FY 2019 resulting in either a cost savings or
meeting the direction that an agency issue twice as many Executive
Order 13771 deregulatory actions as Executive Order 13771 regulatory
actions.
USDA's 2018 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, and 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:
The Department will promote American agricultural products and
exports that benefit and grow the U.S. agricultural economy and rural
America: To achieve this, USDA will expand international marketing
opportunities through promotion activities, development of
international standards, removal of trade barriers to U.S. exports, and
negotiation of new trade agreements. USDA will also partner with
developing countries to assist them with movement along the
agricultural market continuum from developing economies to developed
economies with promising demand potential.
[rtarr8] Agricultural Trade Promotion Program: This action will
assist U.S. agricultural industries to conduct market promotion
activities that promote U.S. agricultural commodities in foreign
markets, including activities that address existing or potential non-
tariff barriers to trade. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0551-AA92.
The Department will 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] Implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard: This action was mandated by the National Bioengineered Food
Disclosure Standard (Law), which required 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 has proposed requirements
that, if finalized, will serve as a national mandatory bioengineered
food disclosure standard for bioengineered food and food that may be
bioengineered. The proposed rule published on May 4, 2018, and the
deadline for public comment was July 3, 2018. AMS reviewed over 14,000
comments that will be analyzed and addressed in the final rule. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD54.
[rtarr8] Improve effectiveness and efficiency of helping
individuals move 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. The proposed action would modify SNAP requirements and
services for able-bodied adults without children in response to public
input provided through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
published on February 23, 2018. For more information about this rule,
see RIN 0584-AE57.
[rtarr8] Revision of categorical eligibility in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
allows households in which all members receiving benefits under a State
program funded by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program are categorically eligible to participate in SNAP. States have
the option of adopting a policy in which households may become
categorically eligible for SNAP because they receive a non-cash or in-
kind benefit or service funded by TANF. FNS will issue a proposed rule
to amend the regulations pertaining to categorically eligible TANF
households by limiting categorical eligibility to households that
received cash TANF or other substantial assistance from TANF. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE62.
[rtarr8] Reform provisions for the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program's Quality Control System: FNS will propose revisions
to reform and strengthen its SNAP Quality Control system based on
stakeholder input received from its June 1, 2018, request for State
government and stakeholder input as to how to best proceed with
reforming the SNAP Quality Control system. For more information about
this rule, see RIN 0584-AE64.
[rtarr8] Simplifying Rural Development's Guaranteed Loan
Regulations Combining Rural Development Guaranteed Loan Regulations
into a single regulation: Rural Development proposes to combine its
four existing guaranteed loan regulations: (1) Water and Waste
Disposal; (2) Community Facilities; (3) Business and Industry; and (4)
Rural Energy for America, into a single regulation. The proposed action
will enable Rural Development to simplify, improve, and enhance the
delivery of these four guaranteed loan programs, and better manage the
risks inherent with making and servicing guaranteed loans and will
result in an improved customer experience for
[[Page 57820]]
lenders trying to access these programs. For more information about
this rule, see RIN 0572-AC43.
[rtarr8] Servicing Regulation for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Telecommunications Programs: The RUS Telecommunications Programs
provide loan funding to build and expand broadband service into
unserved and underserved rural communities, along with limited funding
to support the costs to acquire equipment to provide distance learning
and telemedicine service. RUS will propose to modify the program to
give RUS greater authority to address servicing actions associated with
distressed loans employing only limited coordination with the
Department of Justice. This will streamline and expedite servicing
actions, improve the government's recovery on such loans, and improve
overall customer service. For more information about this rule, see RIN
0572-AC41.
[rtarr8] Amendments to Rural Development (RD) environmental reviews
for rural infrastructure projects: USDA's RD programs provide loans,
grants and loan guarantees to support investment in rural
infrastructure to spur economic development, create jobs, improve the
quality of life, and address the health and safety needs of rural
residents. The current regulation requires that the environmental
review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be completed
prior to the completion of the obligation of funds. The proposal will
allow RD some flexibility with the authority to move forward with the
obligation of funds conditioned upon the completion of environmental
review for infrastructure projects. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0572-AC44.
[rtarr8] Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to
Requirements for Dogs: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) will issue a proposal that would amend the regulations
governing the issuance and renewal of licenses under the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA) to better promote sustained compliance under 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. This rulemaking would also strengthen the
veterinary care and watering standards for regulated dogs to better
align the regulations with the humane care and treatment standards set
by the Animal Welfare Act. The proposal follows an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking published on August 24, 2017, that solicited
comment from the public to aid in the development of these revisions.
APHIS received and analyzed approximately 47,000 public comments. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE35.
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] Seed Cotton Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs: This final action, as authorized by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, will revise the ARC and PLC Programs
to add seed cotton to the list of covered commodities and establish a
loan rate for the purposes of calculating an ARC or PLC payment. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 560-AI40.
[rtarr8] Market Facilitation Program: This action will assist
agricultural producers with respect to commodities, livestock, or
livestock products that have been significantly impacted by actions of
foreign governments resulting in the loss of traditional exports. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI42.
[rtarr8] Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms (Part 340):
APHIS is proposing to revise its regulations regarding the importation,
interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically
engineered organisms in order to update the regulations in response to
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the plant
health risk posed by genetically engineered organisms, thereby reducing
burden for regulated entities whose organisms pose no plant health
risks. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE47.
[rtarr8] National Organic Program; Strengthening Organic
Enforcement: The Agricultural Marketing Service will propose changes to
the USDA organic regulations to strengthen the oversight of organic
products, improve enforcement of organic standards, and protect organic
integrity. The proposal will address gaps in the organic standards to
deter fraud, and enhance enforcement. In addition, this proposal will
support consumer trust and continued industry growth. For more
information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD09.
[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 APHIS to consider requests to
authorize the importation or interstate movement of new fruits and
vegetables in a manner that is more flexible and responsive to evolving
pest situations in both the United States and exporting countries,
while maintaining the science-based process for making risk
evaluations. 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.
[[Page 57821]]
[rtarr8] Increase flexibilities provided to school lunch program
operators in meeting nutrition requirements: The Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) plans to issue a final rule that provides flexibilities
to Program operators participating in the Child Nutrition Programs
effective School Year 2019-2020. For more information about this rule,
see RIN 0584-AE53.
[rtarr8] Provide regulatory flexibility for retailers in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): FNS will issue a
proposed rule to 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] Modernize swine slaughter inspection: The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to finalize a proposal published on
February 1, 2018, to establish a voluntary New Swine Inspection System
(NSIS) for market-hog slaughter establishments, and mandatory
provisions for all swine slaughtering establishments. 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. FSIS received over 83,500
comments. Many of the comments requested that FSIS withdraw the
proposal to remove limits on line speeds due to the negative effect on
animal welfare and worker safety. These comments will be analyzed and
further addressed in the final rule. For more information about this
rule, see RIN 0583-AD62.
The Department will ensure productive and sustainable use of our
National Forest System Lands: To ensure that America's forests and
grasslands are healthy and sustainable, USDA manages approximately 193
million acres of public land, much of it rural and remote. Land
management activities can influence rural economies, and USDA can help
enable economic growth and recovery.
[rtarr8] Update and Clarification of the Locatable Mineral
Regulations: The Forest Service plans to seek public input as it
evaluates its management of the activities associated with mining
``locatable minerals'' that have an impact on the surface resources
including expediting Forest Service review and approval of certain
proposed mineral operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The
Forest Service plans to seek public input to determine whether its
assessment of the need for these changes is shared by the public. For
more information about this rule, see RIN 0596-AD32.
[rtarr8] Oil and Gas Resource Revisions: The Forest Service plans
to seek public input as it evaluates its regulations concerning its
responsibility for authorizing and regulating access to federal oil and
natural gas resources. Updating the regulations will afford an
opportunity to modernize and streamline analytical and procedural
requirements, reduce the paperwork burden on industry, reduce
permitting times for leasing NFS lands, and help provide a more
consistent approach to oil and gas management across the NFS. In
addition, USDA recommended revising the regulation as part of the USDA
Final Report Pursuant to Executive Order 13783 on Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth. The regulation revision will also
make updates in response to legislative actions such as the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0596-
AD33.
USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
1. NOP; Strengthening Organic Enforcement
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The rule supports a broader strategy to strengthen
oversight of organic imports and the organic supply chain. AMS intends
this rule to deter fraud, enhance enforcement and protect organic
integrity.
Statement of Need: The March 2010 Office of Inspector General (OIG)
audit of the National Organic Program (NOP) raised issues related to
the program's progress for imposing enforcement actions. One concern
was that organic producers and handlers facing revocation or suspension
of their certification are able to market their products as organic
during what can be a lengthy appeals process. As a result, AMS expects
to publish a proposed rule to revise language in section 205.681 of the
NOP regulations, which pertains to adverse action appeals. It is
expected that this rule will streamline the NOP appeals process such
that appeals are reviewed and responded to in a more timely manner.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(OFPA), 7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq., requires that the Secretary establish an
expedited administrative appeals procedure for appealing an action of
the Secretary or certifying agent (section 6520). The NOP regulations
describe how appeals of proposed adverse action concerning
certification and accreditation are initiated and further contested
(sections 205.680, 205.681).
Alternatives: The program considered maintaining the status quo and
hiring additional support for the NOP appeals team. This rulemaking was
determined to be preferable because it will reduce redundancy in the
appeals process, where an appellant can more quickly appeal the
administrator's decision to an administrative law judge.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action will affect certified
operations and accredited certifying agents. The primary impact is
expected to be expedited enforcement action, which may benefit the
organic community through deterrence and increased consumer confidence
in the organic label. It is not expected to have a significant cost
burden upon affected entities beyond any monetary penalty or suspension
or revocation of certification or accreditation, to which these
entities are already subject to under current regulations.
Risks: No risks have been identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Tucker, Deputy Administrator, USDA
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 260-8077.
RIN: 0581-AD09
USDA--AMS
Final Rule Stage
2. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-216; 7 U.S.C. 1621 to 1627
[[Page 57822]]
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1285.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 29, 2018.
Abstract: 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). The provisions of this
rule, pursuant to the law, will serve as a national mandatory
bioengineered food disclosure standard for bioengineered food and food
that may be bioengineered.
Statement of Need: This rule would establish a single, national
standard to supersede a patchwork of similar standards implemented or
planned by individual States. The rule may be considered a regulatory
reduction in that affected entities would be regulated by a uniform
standard recognized in both interstate commerce and international
trade. Consumers would benefit from a single standard for consistent
messaging about bioengineered food in the market.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided
by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by Pub. L. 114-
216.
Alternatives: The proposed rule evaluated alternative thresholds
for which disclosure would be required and alternative definitions for
the term ``very small food manufacturer.''
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementation of the standard is
intended to coincide with that of the Food and Drug Administration's
updated food labeling requirements. Such coordination would reduce
expenses for affected food manufactures, who would otherwise bear twice
the cost of changing food labels to comply with each regulation.
Risks: No risks have been identified at this time.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/04/18 83 FR 19860
Comment Period End.................. 07/03/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Arthur Neal, Deputy Administrator, Transportation
and Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 692-1300.
RIN: 0581-AD54
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
3. Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to
Requirements for Dogs
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the licensing requirements
under the Animal Welfare Act regulations to promote compliance, reduce
licensing fees, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent
individuals and businesses who have a history of noncompliance from
obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. This action
would reduce regulatory burden with respect to licensing and more
efficiently ensure licensees' sustained compliance with the Act. This
rulemaking would also strengthen the veterinary care and watering
standards for regulated dogs to better align the regulations with the
humane care and treatment standards set by the Animal Welfare Act.
Statement of Need: Although an applicant for a license renewal must
also certify that he or she is in compliance with all regulations, the
current regulations do not require the applicant to show compliance
before APHIS renews his or her license. As a result, licensees can
currently renew their licenses indefinitely without undergoing a
thorough compliance inspection. This proposal would require persons to
seek a new license every three years and demonstrate compliance with
the AWA regulations as part of the application process. Further, the
current regulations do not require a licensee to show compliance when
the licensee makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or
facilities, including noteworthy changes in the number or type of
animals used in regulated activity. Based on our experience with
enforcing the AWA and regulations, we are concerned that many licensees
struggle to achieve and maintain compliance after making such changes
to their animals used in regulated activity.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the
Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized
to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by
dealers, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, research facilities,
and carriers and intermediate handlers. Definitions, regulations, and
standards established under the AWA are contained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below
as the regulations). Part 2 provides administrative requirements and
sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties,
including licensing requirements for dealers, exhibitors, and operators
of auction sales.
Alternatives: APHIS considered several alternatives in developing
various aspects of the proposed rule. Regarding the types of animals
that would trigger the need for a new license, APHIS considered
requiring a new license for all exotic or wild animal changes, but
rejected this in favor of requiring a new license for types of animals
that are dangerous and have unique regulatory and care needs. With
respect to license termination following two or more attempted
inspections during the period of licensure, APHIS considered requiring
immediate termination but decided in favor of allowing the licensee the
opportunity to first present evidence in defense. APHIS also considered
different time frames for the fixed-term license (e.g., four or five
years) and settled on three years based on our experience administering
the AWA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule would result in cost
savings for both APHIS and licensees by simplifying the licensing
process and reducing fees, while enhancing the protection of covered
animals. Total cost reductions for affected entities are expected to
range between $600,000 and $2.1 million per year. In accordance with
guidance on complying with E.O. 13771, the single primary estimate of
cost savings for this proposed rule is $1.37 million, the midpoint
estimate of savings annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount
rate.
Risks: This proposed rule would address two existing areas of
concern. As noted, it is possible for licensees to renew their licenses
without undergoing a thorough compliance inspection and for licensees
to make noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in
regulated activity. This rulemaking would address those concerns by
requiring licensees to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the
AWA regulations and standards and to obtain a new license
[[Page 57823]]
when making noteworthy changes subsequent to the issuance of a license
in regard to the number, type, or location of animals used in regulated
activities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/24/17 82 FR 40077
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/23/17 .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 10/23/17 82 FR 48938
ANPRM Comment Period Extended End... 11/02/17 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Christine Jones, Chief of Staff, Animal Care,
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-
3730.
RIN: 0579-AE35
USDA--APHIS
4. Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781-to 786
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 340.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: APHIS is proposing to revise its regulations regarding
the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of
certain genetically engineered organisms in order to update the
regulations in response to advances in genetic engineering and APHIS'
understanding of the plant health risk posed by genetically engineered
organisms, thereby reducing the burden for regulated entities whose
organisms pose no plant health risks.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary in order to respond to
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the pest
risks posed by genetically engineered (GE) organisms, to assess such
organisms for plant pest risks in light of those advances and establish
a process to determine whether APHIS has jurisdiction under the Plant
Protection Act to regulate specific GE organisms under Part 340, and to
respond to two Office of Inspector General audits regarding APHIS'
regulation of genetically engineered organisms, as well as the
requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Plant Protection Act, as amended (7
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
Alternatives: Alternatives that we considered were (1) to leave the
regulations unchanged and (2) to regulate all GE organisms as
presenting a possible plant pest or noxious weed risk, without
exception, and with no means of granting nonregulated status.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
Risks: Unless we issue this proposal, we will not be able to
respond to the products of future technologies and not be able to
provide appropriate oversight of GE organisms that pose a plant pest
risk. Additionally, as noted above, the current regulations do not
incorporate recommendations of two OIG audits, and do not respond to
the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill, particularly regarding APHIS
oversight of field trials and environmental releases of genetically
engineered organisms.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Gwendolyn Burnett, Agriculturalist, BRS, Department
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-3893.
RIN: 0579-AE47
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Proposed Rule Stage
5. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: Sec. 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.24(f).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act),
establishes a time limit for SNAP participation of three months in
three years for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are
not working. The Act provides State flexibility by allowing State
agencies to request to waive the time limit if an area that an
individual resides in has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or
does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment for
individuals. This rule will propose modifications to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) requirements and services for Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) in response to public input
provided through the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
Statement of Need: SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of
eligible, low-income individuals and families; this nutrition
assistance also provides economic benefits to communities. It is
important that SNAP support self-sufficiency and reduce the need for
government assistance for its program participants. The Department
recognizes that a well-paying job provides the best path to self-
sufficiency for those who are able to work. To that end, the Department
aims to create conditions that incentivize SNAP program participants to
find employment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Currently unavailable.
Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
Risks: Currently unavailable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/23/18 83 FR 8013
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
[[Page 57824]]
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-AE57
USDA--FNS
6. Providing Regulatory Flexibility for Retailers in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79; 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 278.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014 amended the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the requirement that certain
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) authorized retail food
stores have available on a continuous basis at least three varieties of
items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of
seven varieties. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) codified these
mandatory requirements. This change will provide some retailers
participating in SNAP as authorized food stores with more flexibility
in meeting the enhanced SNAP eligibility requirements.
Statement of Need: The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA, or the Department) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, or the
Agency) is proposing changes to regulations in Sections 271 and 278
which modify the definition of variety as it pertains to the stocking
requirements that certain retail food stores must meet to be eligible
to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
On December 15, 2016, FNS published a final rule that amended SNAP
regulations at 7 CFR parts 271 and 278 to clarify and enhance current
SNAP regulations governing the eligibility of certain firms to
participate in SNAP. On May 5, 2017, appropriations legislation (the
Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2017, or the Omnibus) suspended
implementation of two provisions in the 2016 final rule: (1) The
Definition of `Staple Food' Acceptable Varieties in the Four Staple
Food Categories provision and (2) the Definition of `Retail Food Store'
Breadth of Stock provision (known as the Definition of ``Variety''
provision and the Breadth of Stock provision, respectively). In order
to move forward with implementing these provisions of the 2016 final
rule, the Omnibus required USDA to first amend the Definition of
Variety provision so that the number of qualifying food varieties in
each staple food category increased.
Summary of Legal Basis: On May 5, 2017, the Consolidated
Appropriation Act of 2017 (the Omnibus) was signed into law. Section
765 of the Omnibus prohibited the USDA from implementing the Definition
of ``Staple Food'' Acceptable Varieties in the Four Staple Food
Categories provision (7 CFR 271.2 and 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)) and
variety as applied in the definition of the term staple food as defined
at 7 CFR 271.2 to increase the number of items that qualify as
acceptable varieties in each staple food category from the number of
items that qualified as acceptable varieties under the 2016 final rule.
Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department has estimated that
the proposed rule will save approximately $16.1 million in fiscal year
(FY) 2018 and approximately $22.5 million over five years, FY 2018
through FY 2022. Under the 2016 final rule, the cost to currently
authorized small retailers was estimated to average approximately $245
per store in the first year and about $620 over five years (including
ongoing costs of less than $100 per year for years after the first).
The proposed rule would reduce those costs to about $160 per store in
the first year and $500 over five years.
Risks: NA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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].
Related RIN: Related to 0584-AE27
RIN: 0584-AE61
USDA--FNS
7. Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 601; Pub. L. 113-79
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Under section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008,
households in which all members receive benefits under a State program
funded by the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program are
categorically eligible to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). This proposal would change the regulations
at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) pertaining to categorically eligible TANF
households by limiting categorical eligibility to households that
receive cash TANF or other substantial assistance from TANF.
Categorical eligibility conferred by any non-cash assistance would be
limited to substantial ongoing assistance or services, such as child
care, that have an eligibility determination process similar to cash
TANF. This rule would not alter categorical eligibility for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) households or General Assistance
(GA) households.
Statement of Need: This proposal would change current regulations
by limiting categorical eligibility to households that receive cash
assistance or other ongoing or substantial assistance from TANF, such
as child care, and that have an eligibility determination process
similar to cash TANF. These stricter requirements would ensure that
categorical eligibility is appropriately targeted toward low-income
households most in need while maintaining administrative streamlining
across Federal benefits programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: Currently unavailable.
Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
Risks: Currently unavailable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE62
[[Page 57825]]
USDA--FNS
8. Reform Provisions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program's Quality Control System
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. 2011 to 2036
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 275.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department proposes to revise its regulations for
various Quality Control (QC) provisions in subpart C of 7 CFR part 275
to reflect numerous changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program's (SNAP) Quality Control system. There have been concerns about
the SNAP QC process by not only its stakeholders, but FNS as well,
primarily due to questions regarding the integrity of State collected
error rate data that is used to develop SNAP's national error rates.
SNAP has been working diligently for several years to address these
concerns and plans to move forward to reform components of its QC
process to ensure the integrity of state-reported error rates.
Statement of Need: The Department proposes to revise regulations
for Quality Control (QC) provisions in subpart C of 7 CFR part 275 to
reflect numerous changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) QC system to improve QC integrity. OIG highlighted need
for changes to SNAP QC procedures in a recent audit. These changes can
only be made through regulation, not just policy. SNAP has issued an
RFI to gather ideas from stakeholders on potential regulation changes
to improve integrity and improper payment management.
Summary of Legal Basis: FNA Section 16(c).
Alternatives: None. Regulations needed to make significant change
to SNAP quality control procedures.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: Currently unavailable.
Benefits: Improved integrity and accuracy of SNAP improper payment
measurement.
Risks: NA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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-AE64
USDA--FNS
Final Rule Stage
9. 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 final rule will increase flexibility in the Child
Nutrition Program requirements related to milk, grains, and sodium
effective School Year (SY) 2019-2020, which begins July 1, 2019. This
rule is the culmination of an efficient rulemaking process initiated by
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) following the Secretary's May 1,
2017, Proclamation affirming USDA's commitment to assist schools in
overcoming operational challenges related to the school meals
regulations implemented in 2012.
Statement of Need: This final rule will codify, with some
modifications, three menu planning flexibilities established by the
interim final rule of the same title published November 30, 2017. By
codifying these changes, USDA acknowledges the persistent menu planning
challenges experienced by some schools, and affirms its commitment to
give schools more control over the food service decisions and greater
ability to offer wholesome and appealing meals that reflect local
preferences.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided
by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C.
1758(a)(4), requiring that school meals reflect the latest Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
Alternatives: NA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
Risks: NA.
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 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
Final Rule Stage
10. Egg Product Inspection Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR
590.10; 9 CFR 590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9
CFR 591.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
proposing to require official egg products plants to develop and
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems
and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), consistent with
HACCP and Sanitation SOP requirements in the meat and poultry products
inspection regulations. FSIS also is proposing to require egg products
plants to produce egg products using a process that will eliminate
detectable pathogens from the finished product. Plants would be
expected to develop HACCP systems that ensure that pathogens cannot be
detected in finished egg products.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend the egg products inspection
regulations by removing the current requirements for prior approval by
FSIS of egg products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment
prior to
[[Page 57826]]
their use in official plants; providing for the generic labeling of egg
products; requiring safe handling labels on shell eggs and egg
products; and changing the Agency's interpretation of the requirement
for continuous inspection in official plants.
Statement of Need: The actions being proposed are part of FSIS's
regulatory reform effort to better define the roles of Government and
the regulated industry, encourage innovations that will improve food
safety, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on inspected egg products
plants, and make the egg products regulations as consistent as possible
with the Agency's meat and poultry products regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided
by the Egg Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.).
Alternatives: The Agency considered the following regulatory
alternatives for the implementation of government standards (HACCP) and
related requirements for the egg products industry: (1) Status quo; (2)
Intensify present inspection; (3) Voluntary HACCP regulatory program;
(4) Mandatory HACCP regulation with exemption for small businesses; (5)
Modified HACCP recording deviations and responses only; (6) Mandatory
HACCP, Sanitation SOPs, and lethality performance standards adoption;
and implementation of the sixth of these regulatory alternatives,
mandatory HACCP, Sanitation SOPS, and lethality performance standards,
should achieve immediate reductions in, and an eventual minimization
of, foodborne hazards.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs to the egg products industry
come from the development of Sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans and
compliance with the proposed HACCP requirements. FSIS will incur costs
to train egg products inspectors (EPIs) to ensure that they can
competently perform inspection duties associated with HACCP and
Sanitation SOPs at the 77 federally-inspected egg products plants.
While EPIs are in training, FSIS will also incur costs to pay for
replacement inspectors so that egg products plants can continue to
operate.
Potential industry cost reductions from the proposed rule come from
generic labeling, and the elimination of certain regulations, waivers,
and no objection letters. Under generic labeling, plants do not have to
submit certain labels to FSIS for small changes, allowing plants to
avoid a 60-day approval process and documentation of submissions for
the approval of new labels. In addition, plants receive cost savings
from the elimination of outdated regulations. The regulatory
requirements in the current system may inefficiently use industry
resources. HACCP gives egg products plants the flexibility to decide
how they wish to produce product in the manner that is most efficient
to them, so that no detectable pathogens remain in the finished
product.
Under the current command-and-control based system, FSIS personnel
must approve waivers and no objection letters for certain plant
activities outside the current regulations and inspection program,
personnel assume responsibility for ``approving'' production-associated
decisions. Under HACCP, industry would assume full responsibility for
production decisions and execution. FSIS would monitor plants'
compliance with the requirement that finished egg products not contain
detectable pathogens and within HACCP requirements. This allows
industry and the Agency to reduce costs for approving activities and
allows for better use of resources.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/13/18 83 FR 6314
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/13/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AC58
USDA--FSIS
11. 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; 9 CFR 309; 9 CFR 310; 9 CFR 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: The authority for this action is provided
by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Alternatives: The Agency is considering alternatives such as: (1) A
mandatory New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) for market hog
slaughter establishments and (2) a voluntary NSIS for market hog
establishments, under which FSIS would conduct the same offline
inspection activities as traditional inspection.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 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................................ 02/01/18 83 FR 4780
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/02/18
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57827]]
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)
Prerule Stage
12. Update and Clarification of the Locatable Minerals Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 612
CFR Citation: 36 CFR 228(A).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Forest Service proposes the amendment of its
locatable mineral regulations that better reflect the needs of both the
Forest Service and mining industry. By addressing recent issues and
remedying existing weakness in current regulations that have been
identified, the Forest Service will be in a better position to better
implement its mining regulations. The goals of the regulatory revision
are (1) to expedite Forest Service review and approval of certain
proposed mineral operations authorized by the United States mining
laws; (2) to increase consistency with the United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) surface management
regulations governing operations authorized by the United States mining
laws to assist those who conduct these operations on lands managed by
each agency; and (3) to increase the Forest Service's nationwide
consistency in regulating mineral operations authorized by the United
States mining laws.
Statement of Need: The Forest Service proposes the amendment of its
locatable mineral regulations to better reflect the needs of both the
Forest Service and mining industry. By addressing recent issues and
remedying existing weakness in current regulations that have been
identified, the Forest Service will be in a better position to
implement its mining regulations, thus reducing processing timelines
and redundancies.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Mining Law of 1872, as amended, confers
a statutory right to enter upon certain National Forest System lands to
search for locatable minerals. These rules govern prospecting,
exploration, development, mining, and processing operations conducted
on National Forest System lands.
Alternatives: A no action alternative would leave the regulations
unchanged, thus maintaining the status-quo.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not applicable.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/13/18 83 FR 46451
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/15/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ann Goode, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202
720-7123, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0596-AD32
USDA--FS
13. Oil and Gas Resource Revision
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 612; 30 U.S.C. 181; 30 U.S.C. 351; 30
U.S.C. 21
CFR Citation: 36 CFR 228(E).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Forest Service plays a role in the leasing and
development of Federally owned oil and natural gas found on National
Forest System lands in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management.
Updating the regulations will afford an opportunity to modernize and
streamline analytical and procedural requirements and help provide a
more consist approach to oil and gas management across the National
Forest System. The potential changes to the existing regulation
permitting sections include eliminating language that is redundant with
the NEPA process, removing confusing options, and ensuring better
alignment with the BLM regulations. The intent of these potential
changes would be to decrease permitting times by removing regulatory
burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production across the
National Forest System.
Statement of Need: The Forest Service plays a role in the leasing
and development of federally owned oil and natural gas found on
National Forest System lands in partnership with the Bureau of Land
Management. Updating the regulations will afford an opportunity to
modernize and streamline analytical and procedural requirements and
help provide a more consist approach to oil and gas management across
the National Forest System.
Summary of Legal Basis: Forest Service 36 CFR 228(e) regulations
are done as a result of the Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of
1987.
Alternatives: Forest Service 36 CFR 228(e) regulations are done as
a result of Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not applicable.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/13/18 83 FR 46458
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/15/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Nicholas Diprofio, Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 205-1082, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0596-AD33
USDA--RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS)
Final Rule Stage
14. Servicing Regulation for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Telecommunications Programs
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1981; 16 U.S.C. 1005
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1782.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The regulation will cover servicing actions associated
with the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, Broadband
Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Program, and Broadband Initiatives Program (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the ``RUS Telecommunications Programs'').
Statement of Need: The RUS Telecommunications Programs provide loan
funding to build and expand broadband service into unserved and
underserved rural communities, along with very limited funding to
support the costs to acquire equipment to provide distance learning and
telemedicine service. This action will provide servicing actions
available for the loan portofolio and will enable the Agency to quickly
and consistently address servicing actions and improve customer
service.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is required by statute, the
Agricultural
[[Page 57828]]
Act of 2014 amendment to section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb). This section requires the Secretary to
establish written procedures for all broadband programs to recover
funds from loan defaults.
Alternatives: The agency considered using other existing RD agency
regulations and decided upon combining Telecommunications servicing
requirements with the Water Programs servicing regulation. These types
of RUS loans are more similar than other RD loan programs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs. The
rule will ensure recipients comply with the established objectives and
requirements for loans, repaying loans on schedule and acting in
accordance with any necessary agreements, ensure serving actions are
handled consistently, and protect the financial interest of the Agency.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Thomas P. Dickson, Department of Agriculture, Rural
Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 690-4492, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0572-AC41
USDA--RUS
15. OnerD Guaranteed Loan Regulation
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Rural Development proposes to combine into a single
regulation its four guaranteed loan programs: (1) Water and Waste
Disposal, (2) Community Facilities, (3) Business and Industry, and (4)
Rural Energy for America. The new regulation will encompass the
policies and procedures for guaranteed loan making and servicing,
lender reporting, and program monitoring. The proposed action will
enable Rural Development to simplify, improve, and enhance the delivery
of these four guaranteed loan programs, and better manage the risks
inherent with making and servicing guaranteed loans and will result in
an improved customer experience for lenders trying to access these
programs. This new structure will also make it more efficient and
faster to promulgate regulations associated with amending existing
programs or incorporating newly authorized programs in the future.
Statement of Need: Rural Development is combining its four
guaranteed loan programs: (1) Water and Waste Disposal; (2) Community
Facilities; (3) Business and Industry; and (4) Rural Energy for America
into a single regulation. The new regulation will encompass the
policies and procedures for guaranteed loan making and servicing,
lender reporting, and program monitoring. The proposed action is
expected to involve a few substantive policy changes in order to
achieve consistency across the included programs and better customer
experience for lenders trying to access these programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulatory action is not required by
statute or court order; however, the underlying statutes authorizing
these policies are the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7
U.S.C. 1921 Establishing a Performance Standard for Authorizing the
Importation and Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables (0579-
AD71); Concluded 8/24/2018 and 9007 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended, 7
U.S.C. 8107.
Alternatives: The alternative is to continue operating under the
current existing four regulations for these programs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: At this time an estimated cost is
not known. The proposed action is expected to reflect current program
policy and produce the same policy results, but in a more effective
manner. Anticipated benefits include:
Improve quality customer experience by streamlining and
consolidating similar guaranteed loan programs into a client-driven
consolidated regulation.
Advance economic development and access to capital by
reducing regulatory complexities and redundancies.
Improve operational efficiencies and cross-program
coordination (oneRD) by enabling staff to learn all RD guaranteed loan
programs using one regulation
Enable RD to integrate innovation in the delivery of loan
guarantees and align with industry lending practices
Create a regulation that paves the way for modern
processing and servicing to improve portfolio management
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... 05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Thomas P. Dickson, Department of Agriculture, Rural
Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 690-4492, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0572-AC43
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:
[square] Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge
science and technology from advances in
[[Page 57829]]
nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, to broadband deployment, and by
protecting American innovations through the patent and trademark
system;
[square] Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small
manufacturers;
[square] Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global
marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for
U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent
with our nation's economic and security interests;
[square] Provide effective management and stewardship of our
nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities; and
[square] Make informed policy decisions and enable better
understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and
demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and
Cabinet-level voice for job creation. The Regulatory Plan tracks the
most important regulations that implement these policy and program
priorities, 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 Commerce's programs and activities do not
involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only
three bureaus will be planning actions that are considered the ``most
important'' significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions for FY
2019. During the next year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are
designated as Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office will
each publish one rulemaking action 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 2019, Commerce expects to publish [7] regulatory
actions and [59] deregulatory actions, far exceeding the requirement
under Executive Order 13771 to publish two deregulatory actions for
every one regulatory action. To that end, Commerce may have other
deregulatory actions to implement that do not currently appear in the
agenda.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
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.
NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the
conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and
atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental
and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's
economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm
warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of
promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global
environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with
environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs
designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between
environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's
emphasis on ``sustainable fisheries'' is designed to boost long-term
economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while conserving
the resources in the public trust and minimizing any economic
dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. Commerce is
where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic
debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a ``win-
win'' situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS),
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's
marine fisheries; protects marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-
listed marine and anadromous species; 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.
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 marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-listed marine
and anadromous species 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
[[Page 57830]]
(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 2019, 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.
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.
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.
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
intentional 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 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 720 listed
species found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters,
NMFS has jurisdiction over nearly 100 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 five actions that rise to the level of ``most important''
of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in
this year's regulatory plan. A description of the five regulatory plan
actions is provided below.
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. Specific examples of such actions are the Commerce Trusted
Trader Program and modifications to the Fisheries Finance Program, as
described below. Other examples include rulemakings implementing
regional Fishery Management Council actions that alleviate or reduce
previous requirements.
1. 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,
[[Page 57831]]
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.
2. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act;
Traceability Information Program for Seafood (0648-BH87): Section 539
of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2018 (2018 Appropriations Act) directed the Secretary of Commerce
to ``. . . establish a traceability program for United States inland,
coastal, and marine aquaculture of shrimp and abalone . . .'' and by
December 31, 2018 to ``. . . promulgate such regulations as are
necessary and appropriate to establish and implement the program.'' The
proposed Traceability Information Program for Seafood (TIPS) would
establish registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
domestic, commercial aquaculture producers of shrimp and abalone
species and products containing those species from the point of
production to entry into U.S. commerce. TIPS would close the domestic
reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable NOAA to add imported shrimp
and abalone to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was
mandated under the 2018 Appropriations Act and finalized under 50 CFR
300.324 in a Final Rule (0648-BH89; 83 FR 17762) published April 24,
2018.
3. Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related
to Oil and Gas Activities 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. Modify the Fisheries Financing Program To Allow the Financing of
New Replacement Fishing Vessel Construction in Limited Access Fisheries
(0648-BH82): In 2016, Congress passed section 302 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2015 which included specific authority for the
Fisheries Finance Program to finance the construction of fishing
vessels in a fishery that is federally managed under a limited access
system. Replacement of aged fishing vessels in managed fisheries will
result in more efficient use of fisheries, promote safety at sea, and
improve environmental operations of the fishing industry. This rule
will provide a source of funding to recapitalize and modernize an aged
fishing fleet that will help ensure the continuation of the economic
benefits provided by the nation's commercial fishing fleet.
5. Magnuson-Stevens Act; Fishery Management Councils; Financial
Disclosure and Recusal (0648-BH73): NMFS received input from regional
Fishery Management Councils calling for further guidance and
clarification of financial disclosure requirements of Council members
and the regulatory procedures to make determinations on voting recusals
of Council members. This rule proposes changes to the regulations that
address disclosure of financial interests by, and voting recusal of,
Council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The regulatory
changes are needed to provide the guidance for (1) consistency and
transparency in the calculation of a Council member's financial
interests; (2) determining whether a close causal link exists between a
Council decision and a benefit to a Council member's financial
interest; and (3) establishing regional procedures for preparing and
issuing recusal determinations. This proposed rule is intended to
improve regulations implementing the statutory requirements governing
disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal at section 302(j)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Bureau of Industry and Security
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and
strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and
treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to
prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to
protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
Major Programs and Activities
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also
regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered
by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base
Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require
reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales,
provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base
to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on
the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention
Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection
requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States
treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The
Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with
respect to an agreement between the United States and the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering
the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at
several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S.
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and
[[Page 57832]]
to promote effective export controls through cooperation with other
Governments
BIS' 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 2019, BIS plans to publish a final 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 final rule will be published in conjunction with a DDTC final 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 described in these final rules will be 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.
As with the proposed rules that were published in Fiscal Year 2018, the
review for the final rule will be focused on ensuring that the agencies
have identified 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 final rule will essentially be commercial
items widely available in retail outlets and less sensitive military
items.
The firearms and other items described in the proposed rule are
widely used for sporting applications, and BIS will not ``de-control''
these items in the final rule. BIS would require licenses to export or
reexport to any country a firearm or other weapon that would be added
to the CCL. Rather than decontrolling firearms and other items, 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
NPRM: Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees (RIN 0651-AD31): The Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, provided USPTO with
the authority to set and adjust its fees for patent and trademark
services. Since then, USPTO has conducted an internal biennial fee
review, in which it undertook internal consideration of the current fee
structure, and considered ways that the structure might be improved,
including rulemaking pursuant to the USPTO's fee setting authority.
This fee review process involves public outreach, including, as
required by the Act, public hearings held by the USPTO's Public
Advisory Committees, as well as public comment and other outreach to
the user community and public in general. In 2019, the USPTO
anticipates publishing an NPRM proposing the setting and adjusting of
patent fees. 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.
DOC--BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY (BIS)
Final Rule Stage
16. Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Control of
Firearms and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer
Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 15 U.S.C.
1824a; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; 30 U.S.C. 185(s);
30 U.S.C. 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C.
[[Page 57833]]
1354; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. app
2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. app 5; E.O. 12058; E.O. 12851; E.O. 12854; E.O.
12918; E.O. 12938; E.O. 12947; E.O. 13020; E.O. 13026; E.O. 13099; E.O.
13222; E.O. 13224; E.O. 13338; E.O. 13637; Pub. L. 108-11
CFR Citation: 15 CFR 740; 15 CFR 742; 15 CFR 774; 15 CFR 736; 15
CFR 743; 15 CFR 744; 15 CFR 746; 15 CFR 748; 15 CFR 758; 15 CFR 762; 15
CFR 772.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule describes how articles the President determines
no longer warrant control under United States Munitions List (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 Commerce Control List (CCL). This rule will
be published simultaneously with a proposed rule by the Department of
State that would revise Categories I, II, and III of the USML to
describe more precisely the articles warranting continued control on
that list. This rule also would reorganize and renumber entries
currently on the CCL that control shotguns and certain firearms related
items to place all firearms related entries close to each other that
list.
Statement of Need: This final rule is needed to ensure appropriate
controls would be in place on firearms and related items determined to
no longer warrant control under the United States Munitions List that
would be moved to the Commerce Control List (CCL). This final rule
describes how articles the President determines no longer warrant
control under United States Munitions List (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 Commerce Control List (CCL) and by the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR). This rule is being published in conjunction with a
proposed rule from the Department of State, Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls, which would amend the list of articles controlled by
USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns),
Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III (Ammunition/Ordnance)
of the USML to describe more precisely items warranting continued
control on that list.
The changes described in this rule and in the State Department's
companion rule on Categories I, II, and III of the USML 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 remains on the USML. If an article does not
satisfy either criterion, it has been identified in the new Export
Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in this proposed rule.
Thus, the scope of the items described in this proposed rule is
essentially commercial items widely available in retail outlets and
less sensitive military items.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is taken pursuant to BIS'
authority under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which
regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign
policy, and short supply interests. BIS maintains the EAR, which
includes the Commerce Control List (CCL), which describes commodities,
software, and technology that are subject to licensing requirements for
specific reasons for control.
Alternatives: Take no action in order to maintain the status quo by
not revising USML Categories I, II, and III and not making the needed
conforming changes under the EAR. This alternative was mentioned by
some of the public commenters in response to the proposed rule
published by BIS on May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24166). BIS will evaluate this
(take no action) alternative suggested by some of the commenters, as
well as all other comments received on the May 24 proposed rule, when
drafting the final rule. The rationale provided in the May 24 proposed
rule already addressed why maintaining the status quo was not
warranted, but BIS will further address these comments in the final
rule. BIS will also address the comments that were supportive of the
May 24 proposed rule that agreed with the Departments of Commerce and
State that the items described in the two rules reflected what items
should be retained on the USML and what items should be moved to the
CCL.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This final rule involves four
collections currently approved by OMB under these BIS collections and
control numbers: Simplified Network Application Processing System
(control number 0694-0088), which includes, among other things, license
applications; License Exceptions and Exclusions (control number 0694-
0137); Import Certificates and End-User Certificates (control number
0694-0093); Five Year Records Retention Period (control number 0694-
0096); and the U.S. Census Bureau collection for the Automated Export
System (AES) Program (control number 0607-0152). This final rule would
affect the information collection, under control number 0694-0088,
associated with the multi-purpose application for export licenses. This
collection carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or
electronic submission for a burden of 31,833 hours. BIS believes that
the combined effect of all rules to be published adding items removed
from the ITAR to the EAR that would increase the number of license
applications to be submitted by approximately 30,000 annually,
resulting in an increase in burden hours of 21,900 (30,000 transactions
at 43.8 minutes each) under this control number. For those items in
USML Categories I, II and III that would move by this rule to the CCL,
the State Department estimates that 10,000 applicants annually will
move from the USML to the CCL. BIS estimates that 6,000 of the 10,000
applicants would require licenses under the EAR, resulting in a burden
of 4,380 hours under this control number. Those companies are currently
using the State Department's forms associated with OMB Control No.
1405-0003 for which the burden estimate is 1 hour per submission, which
for 10,000 applications results in a burden of 10,000 hours. Thus,
subtracting the BIS burden hours of 4,380 from the State Department
burden hours of 10,000, the burden would be reduced by 5,620 hours. For
purposes of E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339), the Department
of State and Department of Commerce final rules are expected to be net
deregulatory actions. The Departments of State and Commerce for
purposes of E.O. 13771 have agreed to equally share the cost burden
reductions that would result from the publication of these two integral
regulatory actions. The Department of State would receive 50% and the
Department of Commerce would receive 50% for purposes of calculating
the deregulatory benefit of these two integral regulatory actions. For
purposes of the Department of Commerce, the net deregulatory actions
would result in a permanent and recurring cost savings of $1,250,000
per
[[Page 57834]]
year, and a reduction in burden hours by 2,810 hours. The reduction in
burden hours by 2,810 would result in an additional cost savings of
$126,281 to the exporting public. Therefore, the total dollar cost
savings would be $1,376,281 for purposes of E.O. 13771 for the
Department of Commerce.
Risks: This final rule must be published concurrently with the
Department of State final rule that would revise USML Categories I, II,
and II, to provide for appropriate controls on firearms and related
items determined to no longer warrant control under the United States
Munitions List (USML) that would be moved to the Commerce Control List
(CCL) under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). If this rule
were not published, entities would not benefit from simpler license
application procedures and reduced (or eliminated) registration fees
based on the transfer of jurisdiction of the items described in the
rule. Thus, entities would not benefit from reduced administrative
costs associated with EAR jurisdiction.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/24/18 83 FR 24166
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/09/18 83 FR 24166
Final Action........................ 04/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Timothy Mooney, Export Policy Analyst, Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, 14th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202 482-3371, Fax:
202 482-3355, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0694-AF17, Merged with 0694-AF48, Merged
with 0694-AF49
RIN: 0694-AF47
DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Proposed Rule Stage
17. Magnuson-Stevens Act; Fishery Management Councils; Financial
Disclosure and Recusal
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 600.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Current regulations require that fishery management
council members disclose any financial interest in harvesting,
processing, lobbying, advocacy, or marketing activity that is being, or
will be, undertaken within any fishery over which the Fishery
Management Council (Council) concerned has jurisdiction. Furthermore,
current implementing regulations also require the voting recusal of an
appointed Council member when a Council decision would have a
significant and predictable effect on the member's financial interests.
NMFS received input from the Fishery Management Council Coordination
Committee, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the New England Fishery
Management Council all calling for further guidance and clarification
of financial disclosure requirements of Council members and the
regulatory procedures to make determinations on voting recusals of
Council members. This proposed action would articulate the guidance
necessary to: Provide consistency and transparency in the calculation
of a Council member's financial interests; provide clarity consistent
with statutory language to ensure that any recusal is based on a close
causal link between a Council decision and a benefit to a Council
member's financial interest; and establish regional procedures for
preparing and issuing recusal determinations.
Statement of Need: NMFS received input from regional Fishery
Management Councils calling for further guidance and clarification of
financial disclosure requirements of Council members and the regulatory
procedures to make determinations on voting recusals of Council
members. This proposed rule makes changes to the regulations that
address disclosure of financial interests by, and voting recusal of,
Council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The regulatory
changes are needed to provide the guidance for (1) consistency and
transparency in the calculation of a Council member's financial
interests; (2) determining whether a close causal link exists between a
Council decision and a benefit to a Council members financial interest;
and (3) establishing regional procedures for preparing and issuing
recusal determinations. This proposed rule is intended to improve
regulations implementing the statutory requirements governing
disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal at section 302(j)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Alternatives: The alternatives are (1) the status quo (keep the
regulatory scheme as it currently is) and (2) update the regulations to
provide consistency, transparency, and clarity in the regulations and
to establish regional procedures for preparing and issuing recusal
determinations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is administrative in
nature. It does not directly regulate a particular fishery. Instead, it
provides guidance and improved clarity about implementing existing
requirements. Because the proposed rule will not directly alter the
behavior of any entities that operate in federally managed fisheries,
no direct economic effects are expected to result from this action.
This action may indirectly result in positive net economic benefits in
the long-term by improving transparency and providing increased
predictability about the voting procedures of the Councils. This
increased transparency provides a net benefit to the nation.
Risks: Because the regulations lack guidance on several key aspects
of reaching a recusal determination, and provide little guidance on the
procedures to be followed when preparing and issuing a recusal
determination, designated officials have developed differing practices
over time to fill in these regulatory gaps and to address new factual
circumstances that have arisen. The risk in not updating the
regulations would be a continuation of the lack of clarity and
consistency in the implementation of the current regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD
20910, Phone: 301 713-2334, Fax: 301 713-0596, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0648-BH73
[[Page 57835]]
DOC--NOAA
18. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act;
Traceability Information Program for Seafood
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Pub. L. 115-141
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 698.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 31, 2018, Sec 539 of
H.R. 1625--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018.
Abstract: On December 9, 2016, NMFS issued a final rule that
established a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from
harvest to entry into U.S. commerce. The final rule included, for
designated priority fish species, import permitting and reporting
requirements to provide for traceability of seafood products offered
for entry into the U.S. supply chain, and to ensure that these products
were lawfully acquired and are properly represented. Shrimp and abalone
products were included in the final rule to implement the Seafood
Import Monitoring Program, but compliance with Seafood Import
Monitoring Program requirements for those species was stayed
indefinitely due to the disparity between Federal reporting programs
for domestic aquaculture of shrimp and abalone products relative to the
requirements that would apply to imports under Seafood Import
Monitoring Program. In Section 539 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018, Congress mandated lifting the stay on inclusion of shrimp
and abalone in Seafood Import Monitoring Program and authorized the
Secretary of Commerce to require comparable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for domestic aquaculture of shrimp and abalone. This
rulemaking would establish permitting, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for domestic producers of shrimp and abalone from the
point of production to entry into commerce.
Statement of Need: Section 539 of the Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (2018 Appropriations Act)
directed the Secretary of Commerce to ``establish a traceability
program for United States inland, coastal, and marine aquaculture of
shrimp and abalone'' and by December 31, 2018 to ``promulgate such
regulations as are necessary and appropriate to establish and implement
the program.'' The proposed Traceability Information Program for
Seafood (TIPS) would establish registration, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for domestic, commercial aquaculture
producers of shrimp and abalone species and products containing those
species from the point of production to entry into U.S. commerce. TIPS
would close the domestic reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable
NOAA to add imported shrimp and abalone to the Seafood Import
Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was mandated under the 2018
Appropriations Act and finalized under 50 CFR 300.324 in a final rule
(0648-BH89; 83 FR 17762) published April 24, 2018.
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2018.
Alternatives: Coextensive with the scope of SIMP, the Traceability
Information Program for Seafood would establish a domestic traceability
program for aquaculture shrimp and abalone traces fish and fish
products from production to entry into U.S. commerce. NMFS will solicit
public input on alternatives to the registration, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for U.S. shrimp and abalone aquaculture
producers in the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of the Traceability
Information Program for Seafood, as proposed, would include a small
registration fee and labor associated with reporting harvest
information to NMFS as well as compliance with any requests for audit
or inspection. The Traceability Information Program for Seafood would
enable NMFS to determine the origin of the domestic aquaculture shrimp
and abalone products and confirm that they were lawfully produced. The
Traceability Information Program for Seafood will close the domestic
reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable NMFS to add imported shrimp
and abalone to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which will
prevent illegally harvested or misrepresented seafood products from
entering U.S. commerce, thereby leveling the playing field for law
abiding shrimp and abalone producers in the U.S. and around the world.
Risks: Failure to implement the Traceability Information Program
for Seafood would violate Section 539 of the 2018 Appropriations Act
and likely provoke challenges to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program
in international trade fora.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
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-BH87
DOC--NOAA
Final Rule Stage
19. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities 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 petition from the U.S.
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
to promulgate regulations governing the authorization of take of marine
mammals incidental to oil and gas industry geophysical surveys
conducted in support of hydrocarbon exploration and development on the
Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico from approximately 2018
through 2023.
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
[[Page 57836]]
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.
Summary of Legal Basis: Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Alternatives: The regulatory impact analysis considers several
alternatives with varying amounts of required mitigation by industry
authorization-holders. The proposed rule seeks comment on the extent to
which certain areas should be closed to geophysical activity, the
distance at which operators must shut down upon detection of specified
species of whales, and the mitigation requirements concerning large
dolphins.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule would include mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements, as required by the MMPA. The
rule analyzes the impacts against two baselines--the current mitigation
requirements as stipulated in a settlement agreement currently in
effect until November 1, 2018, and the requirements prior to the
settlement agreement. Compared to the settlement agreement, the
annualized impacts of the proposed rule are estimated to achieve a cost
savings of $11 million to $147 million. Compared to the pre-settlement
agreement baseline the annualized costs are estimated to range from $49
million to $182 million. The rule would also result in certain non-
monetized benefits. The lessened risk of harm to 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 Gulf of Mexico (GOM) region are
expected to benefit the marine mammal populations that support this
economic activity in the GOM. The 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,
NMFSs 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 rule, the litigation would continue.
The IHA application process that would be available to companies would
be more expensive and time-consuming.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/22/18 83 FR 29212
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/21/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
20. 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 (SIMP) (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 was recommended by an interagency
working group to reduce the burden of SIMP compliance for importers
with secure supply chains by reducing reporting requirements for entry
into U.S. commerce and allowing more flexible approaches to retaining
supply chain records.
Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Alternatives: SIMP 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. The Commerce Trusted Trader
Program is designed to allow those entities who
[[Page 57837]]
demonstrate a robust traceability and internal control system, and
submit to annual third-party audits of their system, to benefit from
reduced reporting requirements of SIMP species at the time of entry as
well as flexibility in how they maintain the complete chain of custody
records within their secure supply chain.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Commerce Trusted Trader Program,
as proposed, will result in an estimated industry-wide savings between
$0.50 and $1.21 million annually. Anticipated costs are minimal and
include a one-time application fee of $30.00 and associated labor costs
of developing application materials. Commerce Trusted Traders will
benefit from the reduced reporting costs at entry and reduced
recordkeeping costs due to flexibility in archiving chain of custody
records, but incur costs to perform an annual third-party audit of
adherence to their Compliance Plan.
Risks: While there is no risk of not implementing a Commerce
Trusted Trader Program, not doing so would deprive industry of
potentially significant cost savings for an existing regulatory
program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/17/18 83 FR 2412
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/19/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
DOC--PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (PTO)
Proposed Rule Stage
21. Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-29
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The USPTO operates like a business in that it fulfills
requests for intellectual property products and services that are paid
for by users of those services. The USPTO takes this action to set and
adjusts patent fee amounts to provide sufficient aggregate revenue to
cover aggregate cost of operations.
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to set and adjust
patent fee amounts to provide sufficient aggregate revenue to cover the
agency's aggregate cost of operations. To this end, this rule creates
new or changes existing fees for patent services, and does so without
imposing any new costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
enacted in 2011, provided USPTO with the authority to set and adjust
its fees for patent and trademark services. Since then, USPTO has
conducted an internal biennial fee review, in which it undertook
internal consideration of the current fee structure, and considered
ways that the structure might be improved, including rulemaking
pursuant to the USPTO's fee setting authority. This fee review process
involves public outreach, including, as required by the Act, public
hearings held by the USPTO's Public Advisory Committees, as well as
public comment and other outreach to the user community and public in
general.
Alternatives: This rulemaking action is currently in development
and alternatives have not yet been determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking action is currently
in development and aggregate annual economic impacts have not yet been
determined. It is anticipated that the final rule would become
effective with the new fee schedule in 2020.
Risks: 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.
Therefore, one risk of taking no action could be that USPTO might not
be able to recover its aggregate costs of operations in the long run.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/00/19 .......................
Final Action........................ 08/00/20 .......................
Final Action Effective.............. 10/00/20 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Brendan Hourigan, Director, Office of Planning and
Budget, Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Phone: 571 272-8966, Fax: 571 273-
8966, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0651-AD31
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department,
employing over 1.3 million military personnel and 742,000 civilians
with operations all over the world. DoD's enduring mission is to
provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect
the security of our nation. In support of this mission, DoD adheres to
a strategy where a more lethal force, strong alliances and
partnerships, American technological innovation, and a culture of
performance will generate a decisive and sustained United States
military advantage. Because of this expansive and diversified mission
and reach, DoD regulations can address a broad range of matters and
have an impact on varied members of the public, as well as a multitude
of other federal agencies.
The regulatory and deregulatory actions identified in this
Regulatory Plan embody the core of DoD's regulatory priorities for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and help support or impact the Secretary's three
lines of efforts to: (1) Build a more lethal force; (2) strengthen
alliances and attract new partners; and (3) reform the Department for
greater performance and affordability. These actions originate within
three of DoD's
[[Page 57838]]
main regulatory components--the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), which is
responsible for contracting and procurement policy, the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)),
which supports troop readiness and health affairs, and the Department
of the Army through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
which provides engineering services to support the national interest.
The missions of these offices are discussed more fully below.
DoD's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The Department's regulatory program strives to be responsive,
efficient, and transparent. DoD adheres to the general principles set
forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' dated October 4, 1993, by promulgating only those regulations
that are required by law, necessary to interpret the law, or are made
necessary by compelling public need. By following this regulatory
philosophy, the Department's regulatory program also compliments and
advances the Secretary's third line of effort--to reform the Department
for greater performance and affordability.
The Department is also fully committed to implementing and
sustaining regulatory reform in accordance with Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' dated January
30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda,'' dated February 24, 2017. These reform efforts support DoD's
goals to eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations;
account for the currency and legitimacy of each of the Department's
regulations; and ultimately reduce regulatory burden and costs placed
on the American people. Specifically in support of DoD's reform
efforts, DoD appointed a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. DoD also
established 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.
DoD is implementing its reform efforts in three general phases:
Phase I: Utilizing the Task Force, assess all 716
existing, codified DoD regulations to include 350 solicitation
provisions and contract clauses contained in the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 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: Implementing the approved recommendations.
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: Incorporating into its policies a requirement
for components to sustain review of both new regulatory actions and
existing regulations.
In FY 2019, based primarily on the ongoing work of the Task Force,
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 under Executive Order 13771.
Additionally, the Task Force will continue working to execute
directives under Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline its
regulatory process and permitting reviews.
In addition to reform efforts, DoD is also mindful of the
importance of international regulatory cooperation, consistent with
domestic law and trade policy, as described in Executive Order 13609,
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012). For
example, 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.
In this context, 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.
DoD Priority Regulatory Actions
As stated above, OUSD (A&S), OUSD (P&R), and the Department of the
Army will be planning actions that are considered the most important
significant DoD regulatory actions for FY 2019. During the next year,
these DoD Components plan to publish 15 rulemaking actions that are
designated as significant actions. Further information on these actions
is provided below.
OUSD (A&S)/Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC)
DPC is responsible for all contracting and procurement policy
matters in the Department and uses the Defense Acquisition Regulations
System (DARS) to develop and maintain acquisition rules and to
facilitate the acquisition workforce as they acquire goods and
services. For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules:
Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in
excess of costs.
Rulemakings that promote Open Government and use disclosure as a
regulatory tool.
Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 2017-D040). RIN: 0750-AJ50
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement section 888 of
the NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires DoD to justify when a
solicitation includes ``brand name or equal'' specifications, which
could limit competition by unnecessarily restricting offerors to a
limited set of specifications. Currently, if the Government intends to
procure specific ``brand name'' products, the contracting officer must
prepare a justification and obtain the appropriate approval based on
the estimated dollar value of the contracts. However, a justification
is not required to use ``brand name or equal'' descriptions in a
solicitation. To implement section 888, this rule proposes to amend the
DFARS to require contracting officers to obtain an approval of a
justification for use of ``brand name or equal'' descriptions, which
would then be posted with the covered solicitation. It is expected that
this rule will both promote transparency with industry by disclosing
the basis for the Government's decision to limit competition and, in
turn, present an opportunity to increase competition.
Rulemakings that streamline regulations and reduce unjustified
burdens.
Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS Case 2017-D038).
RIN: 0750-AJ48
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the threshold for
determining when a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) is
required. The Government will conduct
[[Page 57839]]
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. Currently, if a prime 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. This rule proposes to
amend the DFARS to raise the dollar threshold at which an ACO makes the
determination to conduct a CPSR 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 regulations
making DoD's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in
achieving regulatory objectives.
Submission of Summary Subcontract Reports (DFARS Case 2017-D005). RIN:
0750-AJ42
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to clarify the entity to
which contractors submit Summary Subcontract Reports in the Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) and to clarify the entity that
acknowledges receipt of, or rejects, the reports in eSRS. This rule
streamlines the submission and review of Summary Subcontract Reports
(SSRs) for DoD contractors and brings the DFARS into compliance with
changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Instead of submitting
multiple SSRs to various departments and agencies within DoD,
contractors with individual subcontracting plans will submit a single,
consolidated SSR in eSRS at the DoD level. The consolidated SSR will be
acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the DoD level.
OUSD (P&R)/Assistance Secretary of Defense for 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). The rule 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 (PPO) health plan previously
known as TRICARE Extra and replaced by TRICARE Select; and to the third
health care option known as TRICARE Standard, which was terminated
December 31, 2017, and is also 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 section 701
and partially implementing several other sections of NDAA-17, this 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. Finally, 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.
USACE
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
flood and coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration in the United States, USACE is involved
in a wide range of public works throughout the world.
The USACE's 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:
Water resources development activities including flood
risk management, navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, recreation,
emergency response, and environmental stewardship
Design and construction management of military facilities
for the Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve and other
Defense and Federal agencies.
For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules.
Waters of the United States. RINs: 0710-AA79, 0710-AA80
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 Executive Order
13778, ``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,
[[Page 57840]]
the agencies published a Federal Register notice proposing to repeal
(STEP 1 of a comprehensive 2-STEP process) the 2015 Clean Water Rule
(2015 Rule) and recodify the pre-existing regulations; the initial 30-
day comment period was extended an additional 30 days to September 28,
2017. The agencies signed a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
on June 29, 2018, clarifying and seeking additional comment on the
proposal.
In Step 2 (Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'),
the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the
prior regulations and the approach in the CWR2015 Rule. In determining
the possible new approach, the agencies are considering defining
``navigable waters'' 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.''
On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an
applicability date to the CWR2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide
continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes,
and the public while the agencies conduct STEP 2 of the rulemaking.
Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to
implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the CWR
consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed
by applicable agency guidance documents.
Regulatory Program of the Army Corps of Engineers Tribal Consultation
and National Historic Preservation Act Compliance. RIN: 0710-AA75
The USACE recognizes the sovereign status of Indian tribes (as
defined by Executive Order 13175) and our obligation for pre-decisional
government-to-government consultation, as established through and
confirmed by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and Presidential documents and policies, on
proposed regulatory actions (e.g., individual permit decisions and
general permit verifications). The USACE Regulatory Program's
regulations for considering the effects of its actions on historic
properties as required under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) are outlined at 33 CFR 325 Appendix C. Since
these regulations were promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments
to the NHPA and revisions to Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR part 800 subpart B,
addressing, among other things, tribal consultation requirements. In
response, the USACE issued interim guidance until rulemaking could be
completed in order to ensure full compliance with the NHPA and ACHP's
regulations. The USACE seeks to revise its regulations to conform to
these requirements.
Policy for Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial Water Supply Uses of
Reservoir Projects Operated by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. RIN: 0710-AA72
The USACE is updating and clarifying its policies governing the use
of its reservoir projects for domestic, municipal and industrial water
supply pursuant to Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the
Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA). The USACE intends through this
rulemaking to explain and improve its interpretations and practices
under these statutes. The rule is intended to enhance the USACE's
ability to cooperate with State and local interests in the development
of water supplies in connection with the operation of its reservoirs
for federal purposes as authorized by Congress, to facilitate water
supply uses of USACE reservoirs by others as contemplated under
applicable law, and to avoid interfering with lawful uses of water by
any entity when the USACE exercises its discretionary authority under
either section 6 or the WSA. The rule would apply only to reservoir
projects operated by the USACE, not to projects operated by other
federal or non-federal entities, and it would not impose requirements
on any other entity, alter existing contractual arrangements at USACE
reservoirs, or require operational changes at any Corps reservoir.
Natural Disaster Procedures: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Activities of the Corps of Engineers. RIN: 0710-AA78
The USACE is proposing to update its regulations for USACE's
natural disaster procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the Flood Control
Act of 1941, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly referred to as
Public Law 84-99. The revisions are necessary to incorporate elements
of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014),
and update procedures concerning USACE authority to address disaster
preparedness, response, and recovery activities. The revisions relating
to WRRDA 2014 include the authority to implement modifications to Flood
Control Works (FCW) and Coastal Storm Risk Management Projects
(formerly referred to as Hurricane and Shore Protection Projects); and
the authority to implement nonstructural alternatives to
rehabilitation, if requested by the non-federal sponsor. Other
significant changes under consideration include revisions to the
eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance for FCW, an increase
to the minimum repair cost for FCW projects, revised policies to
address endangered species and vegetation management during
rehabilitation, and a change in the cost share for emergency measures
constructed using permanent construction standards.
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources--Review and
Approval of Mitigation Banks and In-Lieu Fee Programs. RIN: 0710-AA83
This rule proposes to amend the regulations governing the review
and approval process for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs,
which are used to provide compensatory mitigation that offsets losses
of jurisdictional waters and wetlands authorized by Department of the
Army permits. Those regulations also include time frames for certain
steps in the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review and
approval process. The review and approval process for mitigation banks
and in-lieu fee programs includes an opportunity for public and agency
review and comment, as well as a second review by an interagency review
team. The interagency review team consists of federal, tribal, state,
and local agencies that review documentation and provide the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with advice on the establishment
and management of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. The USACE
is reviewing the review and approval process and the interagency review
team process in particular to determine whether and how it can enhance
the efficiency of those processes. An increase in efficiency could
result in savings to the public if it results in similar or improved
outcomes with shorter review times and thereby reduce risk and
uncertainty for mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program sponsors and
the costs they incur in obtaining mitigation banking or in-lieu fee
program instruments. An increase in review efficiency could also
decrease the resources other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies
expend in reviewing these activities, attending meetings, participating
in site visits, and
[[Page 57841]]
providing their comments to the USACE.
Modification of Nationwide Permits. RIN: 0710-AA84
The USACE issues nationwide permits to authorize specific
categories of activities in jurisdictional waters and wetlands that
have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse
environmental effects. The issuance and reissuance of nationwide
permits must be done every five years to continue the Nationwide Permit
Program. The nationwide permits were last issued on December 21, 2016,
and expire on March 18, 2022. On October 25, 2017, the USACE issued a
report to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13783, Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic Growth. In that report, the USACE
recommended changes to nine nationwide permits that authorize
activities related to domestic energy production and use, including
oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources, as well as
renewable energy sources such as flowing water, wind, and solar energy.
This rulemaking action would seek to review and, if appropriate, modify
those nine nationwide permits in accordance with the opportunities
identified in the report in order to reduce burdens on the public. In
addition, the Corps is considering modifying an additional 23
nationwide permits to allow federal agencies to select and use
nationwide permits without additional USACE review. This rulemaking
action would help simplify the nationwide permit authorization process.
DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)
Proposed Rule Stage
22. 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) of
$25 million, 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.
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................................ 01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
23. 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 (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (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).
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................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 57842]]
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AJ50
DOD--DARC
Final Rule Stage
24. Submission of Summary Subcontract Report (DFARS CASE 2017-D005)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the entity to
which Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) are to be submitted and the
entity that acknowledges receipt of, or rejects, SSRs in the Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The SSR is used to collect
prime contractors' and subcontractors' subcontract award data for a
specific Federal Government agency when the prime or subcontractor: (a)
Holds one or more contracts over $700,000 (over $1,500,000 for
construction of a public facility); and (b) is required to report
subcontracts awarded to various types of small business under an
individual subcontracting plan with the Federal Government. Currently,
the contractors submit the SSR to the various individual DoD components
(i.e., departments and agencies within DoD) with which they have
contracts. As a result of this rule, contractors with individual
subcontracting plans will submit a single, consolidated SSR in eSRS at
the DoD-level, which will be acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the
DoD-level. These revisions will bring DFARS into compliance with the
requirement for a consolidated SSR in the clause at Federal Acquisition
Regulation 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This rule will
also have a positive impact on contractors, because they will be able
to submit a single consolidated SSR to DoD, instead of multiple SSRs to
DoD components.
Statement of Need: The purpose of the rule change is to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement
a policy that streamlines the submission and review of Summary
Subcontract Reports (SSRs) for DoD contractors. Instead of the current
practice of submitting multiple SSRs to various departments or agencies
within DoD, contractors with individual subcontracting plans will
submit one consolidated SSR at the DoD level in the Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The consolidated SSR will be
acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the DoD level. Large business
contractors currently submit SSRs to the department or agency within
DoD that administers the majority of the contractor's individual
subcontracting plans, and these contractors frequently must submit SSRs
to each department or agency within DoD with which they have contracts.
This results in extra work for the contractors and creates problems
with duplicate subcontracting data. By requiring submission and review
of SSRs at the DoD level, this rule identifies a solution for these
issues.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is issued 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 known alternatives that would achieve
the efficiencies expected from this rule. The current submission
requirements result in extra work for contractors and create problems
with duplicate subcontracting data being reported.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By requiring submission and review
of SSRs at the DoD level, this rule solves these issues. The following
is a summary of the estimated anticipated public cost savings
calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7-percent discount rate and in
perpetuity:
Annualized Cost Savings: -$25,514.
Present Value Cost Savings: -$364,492.
Risks: There are no identified risks associated with this rule. The
rule should serve to eliminate the potential for duplicative reporting
of subcontracting data to DoD.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/29/18 83 FR 30666
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/28/18
Final Action........................ 12/00/18
Final Action Effective.............. 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AJ42
DOD--U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE)
Prerule Stage
25. Regulatory Program of the Army Corps of Engineers Tribal
Consultation and National Historic Preservation Act Compliance
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C. 401; 33 U.S.C. 403; 33
U.S.C. 1413
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 325.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recognizes the
sovereign status of Indian tribes (as defined by Executive Order 13175)
and our obligation for pre-decisional government-to-government
consultation, as established through and confirmed by the U.S.
Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions,
and Presidential documents and policies, on proposed regulatory actions
(e.g., individual permit decisions and general permit verifications).
In addition, the USACE must also consider the effects of its actions on
historic properties pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The USACE Regulatory Program's regulations for
complying with the NHPA are outlined at 33 CFR 325 appendix C. Since
these regulations were promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments
to the NHPA and revisions to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR part 800 subpart B,
addressing, among other things, tribal consultation requirements. In
response, the USACE issued interim guidance until rulemaking could be
completed in order to ensure full compliance with the NHPA and ACHP's
regulations. The USACE seeks to revise its regulations to conform to
these requirements. Consequently, the USACE intends to publish an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit the public's input and
inform its drafting of any future rulemaking.
Statement of Need: Since the USACE Regulatory Program's regulations
for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) were
promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments to the NHPA and
revisions
[[Page 57843]]
to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36
CFR part 800 subpart B. The ACHP's regulations address, among other
things, tribal consultation requirements. The Corps seeks to revise its
regulations to conform to these requirements, and to develop
regulations governing consultation with Indian tribes.
Summary of Legal Basis: For historic properties: Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The USACE's obligations to consult
with Indian tribes are derived from the U.S. Constitution, treaties,
statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and Presidential
documents and policies.
Alternatives: Various alternatives are expected to be developed
from the input received from the advance notice of proposed rulemaking,
and further explored during the development of the proposed and final
rules.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs and benefits will
be estimated as rule options are developed after comments received in
response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking are evaluated.
Risks: The regulation is expected to reduce risks to the
environment, specifically historic properties, properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance to tribes, and natural
resources that are subject to tribal treaty rights. Other potential
risks will likely be identified through the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and those risks will be evaluated during the rulemaking
process.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/00/19 .......................
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 05/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Amy Klein, Regulatory Program Manager, Department
of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington,
DC 20314, Phone: 202 761-4559, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0710-AA75
DOD--COE
Proposed Rule Stage
26. Natural Disaster Procedures: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Activities of the Corps of Engineers
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 701n
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 203.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Corps is proposing to update the Federal regulation
for its natural disaster procedures currently promulgated in 33 CFR
part 203. This proposed rule continues the rulemaking process to revise
33 CFR part 203, which implements section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1941, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly referred to as Public Law
84-99. The Corps initiated this process through advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on February 13, 2015. The revisions under
consideration would respond to the comments to the ANPR. The revisions
address statutory changes to the program enacted in section 3011 and
3029 of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA
2014) regarding the System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF),
modifications to Flood Control Works (FCW) and Coastal Storm Risk
Management Projects (formerly referred to as Hurricane and Shore
Protection Projects); and nonstructural alternatives to rehabilitation,
if requested by the non-Federal sponsor. Additional revisions address
statutory changes from section 1176 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2016 (WRDA) which provided an express definition of
nonstructural alternatives,'' as that term is used in Public Law 84-99,
and authorized the Chief of Engineers, under certain circumstances, to
increase the level of protection of flood control or hurricane or shore
protection works when conducting repair or restoration activities to
such works under Public Law 84-99. Other significant changes under
consideration include revisions to the eligibility criteria for
rehabilitation assistance for flood control works (FCW), an increase to
the minimum repair cost for FCW projects, revised policies to address
endangered species and vegetation management during rehabilitation, and
a change in the cost share for emergency measures constructed using
permanent construction standards.
Statement of Need: Since the last revision in 2003, significant
disasters, including Hurricane Katrina (2005), Hurricane Sandy (2012),
flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013),
and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria (2017) have provided a more
detailed understanding of the nature and severity of risk associated
with flood control projects. Additionally, the maturation of risk-
informed decision making approaches and technological advancements have
influenced the outlook on how Public Law 84-99 activities should be
implemented, with a shift towards better alignment with Corps Levee
Safety and National Flood Risk Management Programs, as well as the
National Preparedness and Response Frameworks. Through these programs,
the Corps works with non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess,
communicate, and manage the risks to people, property, and the
environment associated with levee systems and flood risks. Revisions to
part 203 are necessary to implement statutes that amended or otherwise
affected Public Law 84-99, as explained in the next section.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 84-99 authorizes an emergency
fund to be expended at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers for
preparation for natural disasters, flood fighting, rescue operations,
repairing or restoring flood control works, emergency protection of
federally authorized hurricane or shore protection projects, and the
repair and restoration of federally authorized hurricane and shore
protection projects damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water of
other than ordinary nature.
1. Subsection 3029(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) (Pub. L. 113-121) granted the Chief of Engineers
authority, under certain circumstances, to make modifications to flood
control and hurricane or shore protections works damaged during flood
or coastal storms events, as well as the authority to implement
nonstructural alternatives in the repair and restoration of hurricane
or shore protection works.
2. Subsection 3029(b) of WRRDA 2014 directed the Secretary of the
Army to undertake a review of implementation of Public Law 84-99 to
ensure the safety of affected communities to future flooding and storm
events; the resiliency of water resources development projects to
future flooding and storm events; the long-term cost-effectiveness of
water resources development projects that provide flood control and
hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits; and the policy goals and
objectives that were outlined by the President as a response to recent
[[Page 57844]]
extreme weather events at that time are met.
3. Section 3011 of WRRDA 2014 mandated that a levee system shall
remain eligible for rehabilitation assistance under Public Law 84-99 as
long as the system sponsor continues to make satisfactory progress, as
determined by the Secretary of the Army, on an approved system wide
improvement framework or letter of intent.
4. Section 1176 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016
(WRDA) (Pub. L. 114-322, title I) provided an express definition of
nonstructural alternatives, as that term is used in Public Law 84-99,
and authorized the Chief of Engineers, under certain circumstances, to
increase the level of protection of flood control or hurricane or shore
protection works when conducting repair or restoration activities to
such works under Public Law 84-99.
Alternatives:
1. No rule update: Implement all changes through agency discretion.
Alternative not selected because the Public Law 84-99 amendments are
very prescriptive and it is inappropriate for those conflicts to exist.
2. Modify: Evaluate required changes and determine which require
implementation via agency discretion and those requiring an update to
the rule, thereby only updating the rule where necessary. Alternative
not selected because of inconsistencies resulting from a lack of
comprehensive consideration and a mix of policies. It would result in
misunderstandings of program activities and inhibit transparency.
3. Repeal and replace (Selected Alternative): Incorporate and
integrate the current state of the practice of flood risk management
principles and concepts through the provision of agency policy codified
in a federal rule. The intended benefit is to encourage broader
community flood risk management activities, as enacted by non-federal
project sponsors. The rule alternative also consolidates recent Public
Law 84-99 amendments into one comprehensive rule, ensuring the Public
has a clear understanding of the responsibilities and requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Overall, the changes to this
regulation provide greater flexibility to the federal government and
non-Federal sponsors and improve the effectiveness of federal and local
investments in riverine and coastal projects. These proposed changes
take advantage of our increased understanding of project risks, moving
from an assessment of how the project is expected to perform to a focus
on a broader set of actions to reduce risk to life, including
operations, maintenance, planning, and execution actions to improve
emergency warning and evacuation and other activities to improve the
ability of communities and individuals to understand and manage
project-related risks. Informed by more detailed understanding of risk
for levee projects, the federal government and non-federal sponsors are
able to apply limited resources to the risk management activities that
most effectively reduce riverine flood risk and avoid expenditures that
have little risk reduction benefit.
Risks: The rule will is expected to reduce risks to public health
and safety by improving the Corps' ability to prepare for national
response framework missions that contribute to the restoration of
critical lifelines that are necessary for life sustaining activities
and economic recovery. The rule is also expected to encourage broader
community flood risk management activities, as enacted by non-federal
project sponsors.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/13/15 80 FR 8014
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 04/14/15 .......................
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Willem Helms, Department of Defense, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202
761-5909.
RIN: 0710-AA78
DOD--COE
27. 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: 33 CFR 328.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: 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 Executive Order
13778, ``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. The agencies are publishing this
proposed rule to follow the first step, which sought to recodify the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that existed prior to the
2015 Rule. In this second step, the agencies are conducting a
substantive reevaluation and revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' in accordance with the Executive order.
Statement of Need: Please see EPA's statement of need for RIN 2040-
AF75, because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
Alternatives: Please see EPA's alternatives for RIN 2040-AF75,
because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Please see EPA's statement of
anticipated costs and benefits for RIN 2040-AF75, because EPA is the
lead for this rulemaking action.
Risks: Please see EPA's statement of risks for RIN 2040-AF75,
because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Stacey Jensen, Department of Defense, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202
761-5856.
Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF75
RIN: 0710-AA80
DOD--COE
28. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources--Review and
Approval of Mitigation Banks and In-Lieu Fee Programs
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
[[Page 57845]]
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C. 403; 33 U.S.C. 1413
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 332.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued
a final rule governing compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic
resources (73 FR 19593). The regulation prescribes a review and
approval process for the establishment and management of mitigation
banks and in-lieu fee programs. The regulation also includes time
frames for certain steps in the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program
review and approval process. The review and approval process for
mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs includes an opportunity for
public and agency review and comment, as well as a second review by an
interagency review team. The interagency review team consists of
Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies that review documentation
and provide the USACE with advice on the establishment and management
of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. The Corps is reviewing
the review and approval process and the interagency review team process
in particular to enhance the efficiency of the mitigation bank and in-
lieu fee program approval time frames. An increase in efficiency would
likely result in savings to the public because it is expected to result
in shorter review times for proposed mitigation banks, in-lieu fee
programs, and instrument modifications, as well as credit release
requests, and decreases in the resources other federal, state, and
local agencies expend in reviewing these activities, attending
meetings, participating in site visits, and providing their comments to
the Corps.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose executing
execute of one of the legislative principles in the Administration's
framework for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, by
removing duplication in the review process for mitigation banks and in-
lieu fee programs that offset losses of jurisdictional waters and
wetlands authorized by Department of the Army permits issued under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899. It could reduce duplication, increase efficiency,
and lower costs by providing one review process for proposed mitigation
banks and in-lieu fee programs, instead of two processes. Depending on
the outcome of this rulemaking, Federal, tribal, state, and local
agencies could end up using a different approach to provide input into
the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review process by
participating in the public notice and comment process along with the
general public.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Corps' legal authority for conducting
this rulemaking is section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Alternatives: Alternatives that may be considered during the
rulemaking process might include, but are not limited to, conducting
the rulemaking to remove the interagency review team process from the
regulation, using other approaches to increase efficiency in the
mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review and approval process, or
making no changes to the regulation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule change is
anticipated to reduce costs for sponsors of mitigation banks and in-
lieu fee programs, by reducing the amount of time it takes to review
and approve their mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and
oversee their operation. The proposed rule change is also anticipated
to reduce costs to the Corps and other Federal, Tribal, State, and
local government agencies by eliminating costs associated with the
current interagency review team processes, including staff time for
review of documentation for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs,
site visits, travel, and participation in meetings. A regulatory impact
analysis will be prepared for the proposed rule, to fully evaluate
anticipated costs and benefits.
Risks: The proposed rule is not anticipated to increase risks to
public health, safety, or the environment because the Corps would
retain its authority to review and approve mitigation banks and in-lieu
fee programs, as well as modification of mitigation banking instruments
and in-lieu fee program instruments. It might only alter how Federal,
Tribal, State, and local government agencies provide their views on
proposed mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and modifications
to approved mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. Mitigation banks
and in-lieu fee programs would continue to be required to provide
ecologically successful aquatic resource compensatory mitigation
projects to offset permitted impacts to jurisdictional waters and
wetlands.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: David B. Olson, Regulatory Program Manager,
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW,
CECW-CO, Washington, DC 20314-1000, Phone: 202 761-4922, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0710-AA83
DOD--COE
29. Modification of Nationwide Permits
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344(e); 33 U.S.C. 403
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues
nationwide permits to authorize specific categories of activities in
jurisdictional waters and wetlands that have no more than minimal
individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. This action
would be a deregulatory action because it proposes to remove specific
terms of nationwide permits that impose costs on prospective
permittees, and it would help simplify the nationwide permit
authorization process. Since the submission and review of such
nationwide permits can take significantly less time than individual
permits, any changes to the program that increase the conditions under
which the nationwide permits can be used could result in significant
cost savings for the public. The issuance and reissuance of nationwide
permits must be done every five years to continue the Nationwide Permit
Program. The nationwide permits were last issued on December 21, 2016,
and expire on March 18, 2022. On October 25, 2017, the Corps issued a
report to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13783, Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic Growth. In that report, the Corps
recommended changes to nine nationwide permits that authorize
activities related to domestic energy production and use, including
oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources, as well as
renewable energy sources such as flowing water, wind, and solar energy.
This rulemaking action would seek to review and, if appropriate, modify
those nine nationwide permits in accordance with the opportunities
identified in the
[[Page 57846]]
report in order to reduce burden on the public. In addition, the Corps
is considering modifying an additional 23 nationwide permits to allow
federal agencies to select and use nationwide permits without
additional Corps review. This rulemaking action would help simplify the
nationwide permit authorization process.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose executing the
recommendations the Corps made in the report dated October 25, 2017,
that it wrote in response to Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth, as well as one of the legislative
principles in the Administration's framework for rebuilding
infrastructure in the United States. For Executive Order 13783, the
Corps may propose to modify 9 nationwide permits that authorize
activities association with energy production and distribution. For the
framework for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, the Corps
may propose to modify an additional 23 nationwide permits so that
federal agencies that want to use these nationwide permits do not have
to submit pre-construction notifications.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Corps has authority to issue nationwide
permits under the following statutes: Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Alternatives: Potential alternatives consist of: (1) Conducting the
rulemaking necessary to make the proposed modifications or other
modifications to these 32 nationwide permits prior to the expiration of
the current nationwide permits, (2) conducting rulemaking to modify a
smaller number of the current nationwide permits prior to the
expiration of the current nationwide permits, and (3) taking no action
until the next scheduled rulemaking. The current nationwide permits
went into effect on March 19, 2017, and expire on March 18, 2022. If
the nationwide permits are not reissued before March 18, 2022, the
nationwide permits will automatically expire and project proponents
would be required to obtain individual permits to conduct regulated
activities under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, unless the applicable Corps
district has regional general permits available to authorize similar
categories of activities.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes to these 32
nationwide permits would reduce compliance costs for regulated entities
by removing or changing certain terms of those nationwide permits to
make them easier to use. According to the regulatory impact analysis
prepared for the 2017 nationwide permits, a typical nationwide permit
verification costs $4,308 to $14,358 to obtain, whereas a typical
individual permit costs $17,230 to $34,460 to obtain. A more detailed
cost/benefit analysis will be prepared when the proposed rule is
developed.
Risks: The nationwide permits reduce risks to public health,
safety, and the environment by providing streamlined authorization for
categories of activities that require Department of the Army
authorization and result in no more than minimal individual and
cumulative adverse environmental effects. The nationwide permits
authorize the construction and maintenance of infrastructure that
supports public health and safety. The streamlined authorization
process provided by the nationwide permits reduces risks to the
environment by giving incentives to project proponents to design their
projects to reduce adverse environmental effects so that they are no
more than minimal. Many of the nationwide permits have acreage and
other terms that help regulated entities design their projects to
qualify for nationwide permit authorization.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/19 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: David B. Olson, Regulatory Program Manager,
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW,
CECW-CO, Washington, DC 20314-1000, Phone: 202 761-4922, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0710-AA84
DOD--COE
Final Rule Stage
30. Policy for Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial Water Supply Uses of
Reservoir Projects Operated by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 708; 43 U.S.C. 390b
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 209.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is updating and clarifying the policies governing the use of
its reservoir projects for domestic, municipal, and industrial water
supply pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 section 6, 33 U.S.C.
708 (section 6), and the Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. 390(b)
(WSA). The proposed rules for the use of storage space in Corps
reservoir projects for water supply are being developed to implement
section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Water Supply Act of
1958.
Statement of Need: The Corps is updating and clarifying its
policies governing the use of its reservoir projects for domestic,
municipal and industrial water supply pursuant to Section 6 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Water Supply Act of 1958. The Corps
intends through this rulemaking to explain and improve its
interpretations and practices under these statutes. The rule is
intended to enhance the Corps' ability to cooperate with state and
local interests in the development of water supplies in connection with
the operation of its reservoirs for federal purposes as authorized by
Congress, to facilitate water supply uses of Corps reservoirs by others
as contemplated under applicable law, and to avoid interfering with
lawful uses of water by any entity when the Corps exercises its
discretionary authority under either Section 6 or the Water Supply Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to make contracts with states,
municipalities, private concerns, or individuals, at such prices and on
such terms as [the Secretary] may deem reasonable, for domestic and
industrial uses for surplus water that may be available at any
reservoir under the control of the [Department of the Army]. 33 U.S.C.
708. The Water Supply Act provides that storage may be included in any
reservoir project surveyed, planned, constructed or to be planned,
surveyed and/or constructed by the Corps to impound water for present
or anticipated future demand or need for municipal or industrial water,
43 U.S.C. 390b(b).
Alternatives: The Army anticipates considering two alternatives:
(1) A no action alternative and (2) revising the Corps' policies
implementing section 6 and the Water Supply Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact. It would
[[Page 57847]]
not change the methodology by which the cost of Water Supply Act
storage agreements is determined. It would establish a new pricing
methodology for surplus water contracts, under which users would be
charged only for costs, if any, incurred by the Corps in making surplus
water available. The costs incurred by the Government and the costs
charged to users for surplus water withdrawals are not expected to be
significant.
Risks: This rule is expected to reduce risks to public health and
the environment by facilitating water supply uses of Corps reservoirs
by others as contemplated under applicable law, and to avoid
interfering with lawful uses of water by any entity. This rule is also
expected to reduce risk by clarifying existing policies of non-
interference with water rights issued by the states or other permitting
authorities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/16/16 81 FR 91556
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/16/17 .......................
Final Action........................ 08/00/19 .......................
Final Action Effective.............. 10/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Joseph Redican, Deputy Chief, Planning and Policy
Division, Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G
Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202 761-4523, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0710-AA72
DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Final Rule Stage
31. Establishment of Tricare Select and Other Tricare Reforms
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
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 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
was 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 finalizes 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 promotes high value services and medications and
telehealth services. It also expanded 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 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 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 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 rule does not involve regulatory
costs subject to Executive Order 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.
[[Page 57848]]
Final Action........................ 01/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 2018-19 school year, about 57 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 Docket 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 are the key regulatory and deregulatory rulemaking
actions the Department is planning for the coming year. We provide
below information about the potential costs and benefits for several of
these rulemaking actions, including whether they would be considered
regulatory or deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771. For
rulemakings that we are just beginning now, we have limited information
about their potential costs and benefits and cannot estimate at this
time whether they would be considered regulatory or deregulatory
actions.
Postsecondary Education/Federal Student Aid
The Department will continue its work to complete two rulemakings
in the area of higher education and Federal Student Aid under the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The Department has
completed negotiated rulemaking for these two rulemakings, described
below, and we are revisiting these regulations with the goals of
alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring appropriate
protections for students, institutions,
[[Page 57849]]
taxpayers, and the Federal government. Through the use of the
negotiated rulemaking process, we have received input from a diverse
range of interests and affected parties.
The Department recently published new proposed regulations that
would govern 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 have proposed to 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 proposed to
amend the discharge provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct
Loan, and Federal Family Education Loan programs. These proposed
regulations would replace those promulgated by the Department in 2016.
The Department recently proposed regulations that would rescind the
Gainful Employment (GE) regulations and remove them from subparts Q and
R of the Student Assistance and General Provisions in 34 CFR part 668.
Under the proposed rescission, the Department would remove the
provisions providing for a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates measure to
determine a gainful employment program's continuing eligibility for
participation in the programs authorized by title IV of the HEA as well
as certain disclosure and reporting requirements.
Additionally, the Secretary plans to initiate a new rulemaking to
revise regulations related to the Secretary's recognition of
accrediting agencies, including specific topics such as: The
requirements of accrediting agencies in their oversight of member
institutions; requirements for accrediting agencies to honor
institutional mission; criteria used by the Secretary to recognize
accrediting agencies, emphasizing criteria that focus on educational
quality; developing a single definition for purposes of measuring and
reporting job placement rates; and simplifying the process for
recognition and review of accrediting agencies. The rulemaking will
also cover issues such as: State authorization, to address the
requirements related to programs offered through distance education or
correspondence courses, including disclosures about such programs to
enrolled and prospective students, and other State authorization
issues; the definitions of a number of terms in the regulations
governing institutional and programmatic eligibility; requirements of
the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant
(TEACH Grant) program, in an effort to minimize inadvertent grant-to-
loan conversions and improve outcomes for TEACH Grant recipients;
direct assessment programs and competency-based education; and
regulations regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to
participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.
Civil Rights/Title IX
The Secretary is planning a new rulemaking to address 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.
Special Education
The Department will continue its work to complete its rulemaking in
the area of significant disproportionality under section 618(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In July 2018, the
Department published a final rule extending the compliance date for
States until July 1, 2020. We are revisiting the significant
disproportionality regulations with the goal of better serving children
with disabilities.
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 Career, Technical, and Adult
Education regulations to remove outdated, superseded regulations for
programs no longer administered by the Department. This deregulatory
action will clarify for our stakeholders and the general public which
of our regulations are still in effect. The unified agenda identifies
other deregulatory actions that will provide cost savings and clarity.
Additionally, during the course of its Executive Order 13777
review, the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force has identified a
number of information collections (ICRs) as being outdated,
unnecessary, or ineffective. We are currently working to discontinue
these.
III. Regulatory Review
As stated previously, the Department is continuing its
comprehensive regulatory reform efforts 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. The Department will
continue to consider public input and feedback as part of these
efforts.
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.
[[Page 57850]]
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
32. 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 the obligations of recipients of Federal
financial assistance in redressing sex discrimination, including
complaints of sexual misconduct, and the procedures by which they must
do so.
Statement of Need: Based on its extensive review of the critical
issues addressed in this rulemaking, the Department has determined that
current regulations and subregulatory guidance do not provide a
sufficiently clear definition of what conduct constitutes sexual
harassment or sufficiently clear standards for how recipients must
respond to incidents of sexual harassment. To address this concern, we
propose this regulatory action to address sexual harassment under Title
IX for the central purpose of ensuring that Federal financial
recipients understand their legal obligations under title IX.
Summary of Legal Basis: We are issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking, and subsequently final regulations, to implement Title IX.
Alternatives: This will be discussed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) and final regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This will be discussed in the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final regulations.
Risks: This will be discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) and final regulations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
33. State Authorization and Related Issues
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011
et seq.
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated
rulemaking, the regulations governing the legal authorization of
institutions by States. The Department is also proposing to amend
regulations for the State authorization of distance education providers
and correspondence education providers as a component of institutional
eligibility for participation in Federal student financial aid under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777,
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative
and policies.
Update and revision to the regulations on State Authorization is
necessary so that the Department does not inhibit innovation and
competition in postsecondary education. Institutions need the
regulatory flexibility to innovate and the Department is committed to
ensuring program integrity with appropriate guardrails to protect
students and taxpayer dollars. The focus of this rulemaking is on
breaking down barriers to innovation and reducing regulatory burden
while protecting students and taxpayers from unreasonable risk.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and
accreditors.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda.
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received,
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus.
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language
to the main committee.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 07/31/18 83 FR 36814
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
[[Page 57851]]
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202,
Phone: 202 453-6914.
RIN: 1840-AD36
ED--OPE
34. Accreditation and Related Issues
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011
et seq.
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated
rulemaking, the regulations relating to the Secretary's recognition of
accrediting agencies and accreditation procedures as a component of
institutional eligibility for participation in Federal student
financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777,
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative
and policies.
We believe that a revision to the accreditation regulations is
necessary to restore the separation of duties in responsibilities in
the triad: The State Authorization, Accreditation, and the U.S.
Department of Education. We believe that the accreditation regulations
may contain redundancy, unnecessary duplication of oversight, and pose
broad Federal overreach in measuring program quality. We also want to
ensure that accreditors while measuring institutional quality do not
infringe on autonomy of institutions in their missions.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and
accreditors.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda.
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received,
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus.
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 07/31/18 83 FR 36814
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202,
Phone: 202 453-6914.
RIN: 1840-AD37
ED--OPE
35. Ensuring Student Access to High Quality and Innovative
Postsecondary Educational Programs
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011
et seq.
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department proposes to create and amend, through
negotiated rulemaking, regulations relating to institutional
eligibility and operations for participation in Federal student
financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, including those relating to credit hour, competency-based
education, direct assessment programs, and regular and substantive
interaction between faculty and students in the delivery of distance
education programs, in order to promote greater access for students to
high-quality, innovative programs of postsecondary education.
Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777,
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative
and policies.
Update and revision to the outlined regulations is necessary so
that the Department does not inhibit innovation and competition in
postsecondary education. For example, regulations implemented regarding
the credit-hour, regular and substantive interaction and institutional
partnerships in instructional programs may limit innovation and inhibit
student completion and graduation in the rapidly evolving postsecondary
education landscape. Institutions need the regulatory flexibility to
innovate and the Department is committed to ensuring program integrity
with appropriate guardrails to protect students and taxpayer dollars.
The focus of this rulemaking is on breaking down barriers to innovation
and reducing regulatory burden while protecting students and taxpayers
from unreasonable risk.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed
topics and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and
accreditors. Another alternative is to only negotiate on one or a
smaller number of the topics the Department has proposed.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda.
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public
hearings inviting comment on our FR Notice outlining
[[Page 57852]]
our intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments
received, the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for
negotiation and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide
alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus.
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
Also, by negotiating a wide range of topics the Department risks
not having the expertise necessary on the rulemaking committee to fully
explore the nuances of each of the proposed topics. To account for this
the Department will form two subcommittees, one directly related to
direct assessment programs and competency-based education. These
committees will report back to the main rulemaking committee with their
reports.
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language
to the main committee.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 07/31/18 83 FR 36814
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202,
Phone: 202 453-6914.
RIN: 1840-AD38
ED--OPE
36. Eligibility of Faith-Based Entities and Activities--Title IV
Programs
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 and 1002; 20 U.S.C. 1099b; 20
U.S.C. 1087aa, 1087dd, and 1091
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 600.9; 34 CFR 600.11; 34 CFR 674.9.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Various provisions of the Department's regulations
regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the
Department's higher education and student aid programs, and the
eligibility of students to participate in student aid programs and
obtain certain benefits under those programs, unnecessarily restrict
participation by religious entities. For example, some provisions may
be overly broad in their prohibition of activities or services that
relate to sectarian instruction or religious worship. Other provisions
may be overly broad in prohibiting the benefits a borrower may receive
based on faith-based activity. The Department is proposing to review
and amend, through negotiated rulemaking, such regulations in order to
be consistent with current law, and to reduce or eliminate unnecessary
burdens and restrictions on religious entities and activities.
Statement of Need: Rulemaking is necessary in light of the recent
United States Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), and the October 6,
2017, Memorandum for All Executive Agencies issued by the Attorney
General of the United States pursuant to Executive Order No. 13798.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and
accreditors.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda.
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received,
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus.
To account for this the Department will provide draft language prior to
the first session of three sessions (each session is three days long)
of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has been used
as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking committee
and the Department provides more specific proposals to the rulemaking
committee between the first and second session.
Also, the Department will form two subcommittees, one specifically
for faith-based entities. These committees will report back to the main
rulemaking committee with their reports.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 07/31/18 83 FR 36814
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202,
Phone: 202 453-6914.
RIN: 1840-AD40
ED--OPE
37. Teach Grants
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. 1070g, et seq.
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 686.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated
[[Page 57853]]
rulemaking, the regulations relating to the Teacher Education
Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant. Our goal is
to simplify and clarify program requirements, minimize inadvertent
grant-to-loan conversions, and improve outcomes for TEACH Grant
recipients.
Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777,
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives
and policies. Our goal is to simplify and clarify program requirements,
minimize inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions, and improve outcomes
for TEACH Grant recipients.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and
clarify current regulations to the loan servicer that overseas TEACH
grant servicing.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda.
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received,
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus.
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language
to the main committee.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 07/31/18 83 FR 36814
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Sophia McArdle, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202,
Phone: 202 453-6318.
RIN: 1840-AD44
ED--OPE
Final Rule Stage
38. Institutional Accountability
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 668; 34 CFR 674; 34 CFR 682; 34 CFR 685; 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, Direct Loan and
Federal Family Education Loan program regulations.
Statement of Need: The Secretary initiated 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 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 are identified through the negotiated
rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These are identified through the
negotiated rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Risks: These are identified through the negotiated rulemaking
process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 06/16/17 82 FR 27640
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 07/31/18 83 FR 37242
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/30/18
Final Action........................ 01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
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 287-25,
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 453-6712, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD26
[[Page 57854]]
ED--OPE
39. 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. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3
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 initiated negotiated rulemaking to
revise the gainful employment regulations published by the Department
on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64889). The negotiated rulemaking committee
did not reach consensus and the Department proposed new regulations to
rescind the gainful employment regulations.
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 are identified through the negotiated
rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These are identified through the
negotiated rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Risks: These are identified through the negotiated rulemaking
process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence 06/16/17 82 FR 27640
Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................ 08/14/18 83 FR 40167
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/13/18
Final Action........................ 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 287-25,
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 also
achieving its regulatory objectives and meeting its 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 is engaged in a number of deregulatory activities aimed at
reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These activities include
amending regulations to expedite the preparation of and simplify the
content of Notices of Sale for the price competitive sale of petroleum
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which in turn will reduce
the administrative burden placed on prospective bidders. Another
important deregulatory action concerns modernizing the procedures for
establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures as part
of DOE's Appliance Program. Also, DOE published a final rule that will
provide for faster approval of applications for small-scale exports of
natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), from U.S. export
facilities.
Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' That Order stated the
policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs
associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, E.O.
13771 requires, among other things, that whenever an agency proposes
for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, the
agency must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.
E.O. 13771 also provides for the establishment of agency regulatory
cost budgets, as identified by the Office of Management and Budget.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' That Order required
that the head of each agency designate an agency official as its
Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation
of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable
law. Further, E.O. 13777 required the establishment of a regulatory
reform task force at each agency. The regulatory reform task force
makes recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or
[[Page 57855]]
modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law.
In implementation of both Orders, on May 30, 2017, DOE published in
the Federal Register a Request for Information (RFI), seeking input and
other assistance from entities significantly affected by regulations of
the DOE, including State, local, and Tribal governments, small
businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and
manufacturers and their trade associations. DOE's goal in publishing
the RFI was to ``create a systematic method for identifying those
existing DOE rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, or
simply no longer make sense.'' DOE solicited views on: (a) How DOE
could best conduct its analysis of existing agency actions, and (b)
insights on specific rules or Department-imposed obligations that
should be altered or eliminated. DOE received 132 separate public
comments from decision-makers, stakeholders, and the public on rules
promulgated by DOE and the burdens some of those rules have imposed.
In response to the May 30, 2017, RFI, DOE received many comments
recommending that DOE update and modernize its procedures for
establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for the
DOE Appliance Program, otherwise known as the ``Process Rule.'' The
current Process Rule can be found in Appendix A to Subpart C of part
430 of the Code of Federal Regulations, published on July 15, 1996. In
response to stakeholder input, DOE published a RFI on December 18, 2017
(82 FR 59992), seeking comments and information from interested parties
to assist DOE in identifying potential modifications to its ``Process
Rule.'' DOE conducted a public meeting and webinar on January 9, 2018,
that was widely attended by a broad spectrum of stakeholders. DOE is
currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), taking into
account the many suggestions from stakeholders, and is including this
proposed rule as part of its 2018 Regulatory Plan. DOE has
characterized this action as deregulatory.
The second deregulatory action that is part of DOE's 2018
Regulatory Plan is a rule that proposes to withdraw the revised
definitions of general service lamps (GSL) and general service
incandescent lamps (GSIL) that would otherwise take effect on January
1, 2020. This proposal would maintain the existing statutory
definitions of GSL and GSIL currently found in the Department's
regulations.
Lastly, DOE is placing one action in its Regulatory Plan: Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products
(1904-AD15), even though it does not meet the Regulatory Plan criterion
of ``most important significant regulatory actions'' of the agency. DOE
has included this regulatory action for the purpose of transparency and
due to the non-trivial costs of the proposed action. At the 7% and 3%
discount rate the primary annualized cost of this rule could be as much
as 42.6 million and 42.3 million dollars, respectively. The primary
annualized benefits at the 7% and 3% discount rate have been projected
to be 126 million and 178 million dollars, respectively.
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
40. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking
Products
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 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)).
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.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Using a 7-percent discount rate for
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for
consumer 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.
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE
must consider whether the benefits of the standard exceed the burdens
by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering 7 enumerated
factors, including the economic impact of the standard on
manufacturers. DOE uses 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), to determine
manufacturer impact. 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
[[Page 57856]]
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 Extended....... 09/30/16 81 FR 67219
SNPRM Comment Period Extended End... 11/02/16 .......................
Supplemental NPRM................... 02/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DOE--EE
41. Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New
or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DOE is considering a notice-and-comment rulemaking to
amend its Process Improvement Rule (``Process Rule'') to reflect
statutory changes as well as innovative, collaborative approaches that
DOE has been using to reflect more efficient appliance standards
rulemaking.
Statement of Need: DOE is proposing to update and modernize its
procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test
procedures for the DOE Appliance Program, otherwise known as the
``Process Rule.'' This proposed rule would reduce burdens on all
stakeholders when engaging in the rulemaking process.
Summary of Legal Basis: On July 15, 1996, DOE published a final
rule titled, ``Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products.'' This document was codified at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A. As explained in the final rule for the Process
Rule, this rule came within the scope of the Administrative Procedure
Act's exemption from notice-and-comment rulemaking for procedural rules
at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Although DOE's current rulemaking to consider
potential revisions to the Process Rule might similarly warrant
exemption from notice-and-comment requirements, DOE nonetheless seeks
input from interested parties regarding potential avenues to improve
DOE's procedures.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI)....... 10/31/14 79 FR 64705
RFI Comment Period End.............. 12/30/14 .......................
Request for Information (RFI) and 12/18/17 82 FR 59992
Notice of Public Meeting.
RFI Comment Period Extended......... 02/07/18 83 FR 5374
RFI Comment Period Extended End..... 03/02/18 .......................
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards-and-test-procedures.
Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Building Technologies Office, EE-
5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 287-1692,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AD38
DOE--EE
42. Energy Conservation Program: Definition for General
Service Lamps
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department proposes to withdraw the revised
definitions of general service lamp (GSL) and general service
incandescent lamp (GSIL) that take effect on January 1, 2020. This
proposal would maintain the existing statutory definitions of GSL and
GSIL currently found in the Department's regulations.
Statement of Need: DOE is proposing to withdraw the revised
definitions of General Service Lamps (GSL) and general service
incandescent lamps (GSIL) that would otherwise take effect on January
1, 2020, to reduce the regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
Summary of Legal Basis: On August 15, 2017, DOE published a notice
of data availability and request for information (NODA) seeking data
for GSILs and other incandescent lamps. The purpose of this NODA was to
assist DOE in making a determination regarding amending standards for
GSILs. Comments submitted in response to the NODA lead DOE to re-
consider the decisions it had already made with respect to the
definitions for GSLs and GSILs.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
[[Page 57857]]
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Celia Sher, Attorney-Advisor, Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202 287-6122.
RIN: 1904-AE26
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2019
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 healthcare and social services,
HHS's work has a clear impact on the daily life of all Americans. As
the federal agency most deeply involved in more than one-sixth of the
US economy, it is imperative that HHS be attentive to the costs of
over-regulation. Building on the progress that HHS has made in Fiscal
Year 2018, the Department will continue to find ways to clarify its
regulations to ease the burden of public compliance, or to remove them
where feasible to avoid unnecessarily diverting resources from the
private sector while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of HHS
programs.
HHS is committed to a regulatory agenda that is focused on better
meeting the needs of the individuals served by its programs, informed
by an understanding that excess and unclear federal regulation not only
imposes serious burdens on job creation and the economy as a whole, but
also that the opportunity costs from overregulation dampen provider
productivity and medical product innovation, which undermines HHS's own
ultimate core mission. Through its rulemakings in the coming fiscal
year, HHS will take concrete steps towards reducing and streamlining
its regulations and improving the transparency, flexibility, and
accountability of its regulatory processes.
I. Advancing Secretary Azar's Priorities Through Rulemaking
Since his confirmation as the twenty-fourth Secretary of Health and
Human Services in January 2018, Secretary Alex Azar has focused the
Department's efforts on four priorities. These initiatives--combatting
the opioid crisis; increasing the affordability and accessibility of
individual health insurance; tackling the high cost of prescription
drugs; and moving to a value-based healthcare system--renew the
substantial efforts made by the Department in these areas over the past
year and a half and have the potential to deliver lasting change across
America's healthcare system.
Combatting the Opioid Crisis
One of the most pressing public health problems of our time, the
opioid crisis has steadily grown over the past several decades and is
now impacting communities across the country. In addition to providing
unprecedented levels of support for states, local governments, and
community organizations working to combat this crisis, HHS is exploring
ways to enhance our nation's response through critically examining its
regulations. To reduce opioid misuse without restricting access to
legitimate services, Medicaid programs can utilize several medical
management techniques, including quantity limits of short-acting and
long-acting opioids. The President's FY 2019 Budget includes a proposal
that would establish minimum standards for Medicaid Drug Utilization
Review programs. Currently, CMS does not set minimum requirements for
these programs, and there is substantial variation in how states
approach this issue. Establishing minimum standards would not only help
increase oversight of opioid prescriptions and dispensing in Medicaid,
but would save the program an estimated $245 million over 10 years.
Additionally, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) is considering updating its regulations
governing medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD)
by deleting outdated provisions and revising reporting requirements for
providers with waivers to treat up to 275 patients with OUD. SAMHSA
will also provide guidance and consider additional changes to 42 CFR
part 2 that can foster further alignment with the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Furthermore, although many
covered entities believe that the HIPAA Privacy Rule precludes such
disclosures, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to propose a rule
clarifying the Privacy Rule provisions most applicable to information
sharing with family members or others when patients are incapacitated.
This would reduce uncertainties about the ability of covered entities
to disclose patient information to family members, friends, or others
best positioned to help individuals suffering with a substance use
disorder or serious mental illness.
Strengthening Individual Health Insurance Programs
In addition, strengthening program integrity with respect to
subsidy payments in the individual markets is a top priority of this
Administration. In furtherance of that goal, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS) will publish an Exchange Program Integrity rule
focusing on ensuring that eligible enrollees receive the correct
advanced payments of the premium tax credit, conducting effective and
efficient oversight of State-Based Exchanges, and protecting the
interests of taxpayers, consumers, and the financial integrity of
Federally Facilitated Exchanges. CMS, through its annual Payment Notice
for the Exchanges, will also emphasize deregulation and increasing
flexibility for states and issuers. CMS will continue to work with the
Tri-Departments to explore allowing more flexibility in the
availability of health plans in the individual and small group markets,
as well as carrying out the instructions in the President's October 12,
2017, Executive Order to consider expanding the use of health
reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
HHS' forthcoming report on promoting competition and choice will
also inform HHS' efforts in this area and help drive positive change.
These initiatives will help restore market forces to ensure
consumers have plans to choose from that meet their needs.
Tackling the High Cost of Prescription Drugs
In May 2018, Secretary Azar unveiled the President's blueprint to
tackle the high cost of prescription drugs, American Patients First.
HHS is aggressively working on actions the President may direct HHS to
take immediately as well as the consideration of actions on which
feedback was solicited in the blueprint. As a part of this ongoing
effort, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to propose
regulations to facilitate access to more treatments for common
conditions and potentially some chronic conditions by using innovative
approaches, including new technologies, to assist consumers in self-
selection and use of drug products that have previously been available
only by prescription. If finalized, FDA believes this rule will improve
public health and lower costs by increasing the number and types of
medications that are available without a prescription.
[[Page 57858]]
Changes CMS plans to make in its annual Part C and D rules, and
potentially other mechanisms, are likewise seeking to improve health
and lower costs for American patients.
Transforming Our Healthcare System Into One That Pays for Value
Over the years, it has become increasingly apparent that the United
States' fee-for-service payment system does not incentivize innovative
therapies and intelligent treatment plans for patients. Previous
Congresses and administrations have attempted to alleviate these
problems through patchwork attempts at introducing innovative payment
models. Now, under Secretary Azar's leadership, HHS will undertake
efforts to comprehensively address this issue and attempt to rebuild
our healthcare system into one that truly incentivizes effective,
efficient patient care by paying for value. As an early step in this
effort, CMS plans to propose regulatory revisions to address the impact
of the physician self-referral (commonly known as ``Stark'') law and
encourage coordinated care. Additionally, OCR will be examining the
HIPAA rules for obstacles that may limit or discourage coordinated care
or otherwise impose regulatory burdens that may impede the
transformation to value-based healthcare, without providing
commensurate privacy or security protections for patients' protected
health information (PHI). HHS' forthcoming report on promoting
competition and choice will also inform HHS' efforts in this area and
help drive positive change.
II. Empowering the American People Through Reducing Regulatory Burden
and Clarifying Regulation
In addition to these four priorities, HHS has been comprehensively
reviewing its regulations to find ways to reduce burdens on states,
grantees, industries, and individuals. 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 Duplicative Requirements and Eliminating Obsolete
Regulations
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 reduces burden
while continuing to administer high-quality programs. For example, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) plans to issue a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its proposal to
streamline 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
to its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in March 2018, ACF
believes it can streamline the 2016 Rule so that state and tribal IV-E
agencies are able to devote less time and fewer resources to
administrative work and to redirect those efforts to the children they
serve.
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
As part of efforts to streamline regulation, in some cases,
regulation is necessary in order to make HHS's processes transparent
and predictable. This year, FDA plans to continue work on needed
implementing regulations for its tobacco program. Rulemaking is needed
to clarify for industry the submission and review processes for various
review pathways 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 continue rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these
regulatory gaps so that these processes become more fair, efficient,
and predictable.
Protecting the Exercise of Conscience Rights
Religious and faith-based organizations and individuals have
historically played an important role in providing needed health care
and human services. However, regulatory and other burdens on religious
freedom and conscience that discourage such organizations and
individuals from participating in HHS programs have been often
overlooked in recent years. HHS has taken a number of steps to rectify
the situation in the past year and plans to continue work to ensure
that HHS's programs respect religious liberty and conscience--and to
relieve burden on the exercise of religion and conscience. In order to
adequately protect these First Amendment and statutory rights, HHS
plans to complete a rulemaking to implement and enforce a number of
HHS-specific conscience laws and protections, in order to help ensure
that individuals participating in HHS-funded health programs are aware
of their conscience rights, that recipients of HHS funds comply with
their obligations to respect such rights, and that there are
enforcement procedures for such conscience protections that are
comparable to other civil rights. Additionally, in finalizing its
update to the Title X family planning regulations, HHS plans to ensure
that the conscience rights of Title X providers are respected.
III. Harnessing Regulatory Reform To Encourage Innovation
In addition to reducing burden, an important outcome of regulatory
reform efforts is the proliferation of innovative solutions and
programs structured to suit the needs of unique problems and
populations. HHS is committed to promoting innovation through a variety
of mechanisms, including deregulatory actions.
Promoting Flexibility for States, Grantees, and Regulated Entities
HHS intends to enhance regulatory flexibility so that its state and
community partners are able to better tailor their programs to meet the
needs of the people they serve. Over the past year and a half, the
Department has been looking seriously at its programs to see how it can
maximize the number of people reached through amending its regulations
to remove or change
[[Page 57859]]
regulatory limitations on grantees and regulated entities. For example,
ACF plans to consider revising minimum service duration requirements
for Head Start center-based programs to allow these programs to serve
more children or better meet the needs and daily schedules of local
families. Rulemaking carried out in 2016 nearly doubled the current
minimum.
Keeping Pace With 21st Century Science
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 of current scientific thinking when carrying
out program activities. Specifically, 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 updating reporting
requirements. FDA believes that these changes will improve the delivery
of mammography services and allow for more informed decision-making by
strengthening the communication of health care information.
FDA is also taking action to facilitate food innovations that can
give consumers more choices and enable better nutrition. Diet is a
powerful tool for reducing chronic disease and its impact on the
healthcare system. Modernizing the outdated framework for food
standards will allow industry flexibility for innovation to produce
more healthful foods while maintaining the basic nature and nutritional
integrity of key food products. FDA will reopen the comment period on
its earlier proposed rule soliciting updated information to guide
development of a modern approach to regulating food standards and
related labeling.
Summary
In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans to consider a number of
deregulatory actions, accompanied by regulatory changes 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
patients, providers, States, tribes, faith-based and community
organizations, and other stakeholders are appropriately considered. By
working with its partners in bringing better healthcare and human
services to the American people, and understanding the challenges that
they face under HHS's current regulatory structures, the Department
will continue to modernize its role in this critical sector of the
national economy, assuring its vitality and the increased wellbeing of
those it serves.
HHS--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)
Prerule Stage
43. HIPAA Privacy: Request for Information on Changes To Support, and
Remove Barriers To, Coordinated Care
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. 115-5, sec. 13405(c)
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 1, 2010, The statutory
deadline to issue a rule on accounting of disclosures was 06/01/2010.
Required by the HITECH Act. Statutory deadline contingent on
further regulatory action.
Abstract: This Request for Information (RFI) would solicit the
public's views on whether there are provisions of the HIPAA Rules which
present barriers that limit or discourage coordinated care and case
management among hospitals, physicians (and other providers), payors,
and patients, or otherwise impose regulatory burdens that may impede
the transformation to value-based health care without providing
commensurate privacy or security protections for patients' protected
health information and while maintaining patients' ability to control
the use or disclosure of their PHI and to access PHI. In addition to a
general request for information, the RFI would specifically seek
comment on a number of particular issues, including: (1) Methods of
accounting of all disclosures of a patient's protected health
information; (2) patients' acknowledgment of receipt of a providers'
notice of privacy practices; (3) creation of a safeharbor for good
faith disclosures of PHI for purposes of care coordination or case
management; (4) disclosures of protected health information without a
patient's authorization for treatment, payment, and health care
operations; (5) the minimum necessary standard/requirement. This RFI
would subsume the previous 0945-AA08 entry in the Regulatory Agenda.
Statement of Need: The HHS Deputy Secretary recently launched an
initiative called the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care. The goal
of the Regulatory Sprint is to remove regulatory barriers that impede
coordinated, value-based health care. This RFI is being produced to
support the Regulatory Sprint.
Summary of Legal Basis: The HIPAA statute and its amendments.
Alternatives: None were considered as this RFI is intended to
solicit various policies for improving HIPAA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No anticipated costs as this is not
regulatory. Benefits include receiving public feedback on potential
policies to pursue in rulemaking.
Risks: None known.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/31/11 76 FR 31426
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/01/11
NPRM Withdrawal..................... 11/00/18
RFI................................. 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy.
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-AA00
HHS--OCR
Proposed Rule Stage
44. HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption of Good Faith of Health Care
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: In an effort to address the opioid epidemic, the proposed
rule would make a number of changes to
[[Page 57860]]
provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule regarding uses and disclosures of
protected health information to ease the burden on and potential risks
to covered entities that may want to disclose PHI in such
circumstances.
Statement of Need: With over 60,000 individuals dying of opioid
overdoses in 2016 and others suffering from addiction to the opiates,
HHS issued a declaration of emergency to recognize a nationwide opioid
epidemic. HIPAA permits providers and other covered entities to
disclose protected health information about an individual to families,
caregivers and other relevant parties in circumstances related to
opioid overdose and addiction. Despite this permission and HHS guidance
clarifying HIPAA, HHS continues to receive anecdotal evidence that
providers and other covered entities are reluctant to share an opioid
patient's health information with family or other caregivers.This
proposal seeks to encourage covered entities to share protected health
information with family members, caregivers, and others in a position
to avert threats of harm to health and safety when necessary to promote
the health and recovery of those struggling with opioid addiction.
Summary of Legal Basis: OCR has broad authority under the HIPAA
statute to make modifications to the Privacy Rule, within the statutory
constraints of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, and other applicable law (e.g.,
the Administrative Procedures Act). 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. 1320d-2(note)).
Alternatives: OCR may issue additional guidance as an alternative
to the proposed rule. However, HIPAA continues to be cited as a barrier
to sharing protected health information in crisis situations, despite
extensive existing guidance and outreach efforts. Without regulatory
changes, it is not clear that additional guidance would be effective in
clarifying the ability to share protected health information in such
situations. Revising the Privacy Rule would be a more effective and
permanent vehicle for achieving the desired policy, and would provide
additional Good Samaritan safe harbor protections to health care
providers who share protected health information when trying to help
patients.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will not create
any new requirements or costs for regulated entities or the public. It
will benefit patients and families by helping to ensure that family
members and others involved in the patients' care can get the
information they need to help their loved ones obtain appropriate care
and support. It will also provide additional protections to health care
providers exercising their professional judgment when making
disclosures of protected health information to further the interests of
patients.
Risks: While we do not anticipate significant risks to privacy
associated with this proposal, the NPRM requests public input on
whether the impact of these amendments, taken together, could be
expected to discourage individuals from seeking care based on concerns
that their PHI may be disclosed against their wishes.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--OCR
Final Rule Stage
45. Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations
of Authority
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 115-31; 22 U.S.C. 7631(d); 26 U.S.C.
5000A(d)(2); 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 300a-7; 42 U.S.C. 238n;
secs. 1553, 280g-1(d), 290bb-36(f), 1320a-1, 1320c-11, 1395cc(f),
1395i-5, 1395w-22(j)(3)(B), 1395x(e), 1395x(y)(1); 1396a(a),
1396a(w)(3), 1396f, 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii), 1396u-2(b)(3)(B), 1397j-1(b),
1553, 5106i(a); 18113s, 18023(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii), 18023(b)(1)(A),
18023(b)(4), 18113; . . .
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 88.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule would provide for the implementation and
enforcement of the Federal health care conscience and associated anti-
discrimination laws.
Statement of Need: Revision of the current conscience rule is
necessary to provide proper enforcement tools to address unlawful
discrimination, coercion and hostility, which has been the subject of a
rising number of complaints before OCR and in Federal courts and raised
questions from Congressional oversight. Clarity about existing
conscience protections is needed to reduce confusion about the law.
Furthermore, the Department lacks strategic coordination across its
components and enforcement tools that are available to remedy invidious
discrimination under other protected bases.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule would enforce and implement health
care conscience and associated anti-discrimination statutes that
protect health care providers and patients in these areas as prescribed
by Congress: (1) Conscience protections related to abortion,
sterilization, and certain other health services to participants in
programs and their personnel funded by the Department; (2) conscience
protections for health care entities related to abortion provision or
training, referral for such abortion or training, or accreditation
standards related to abortion; (3) protections from discrimination for
health care entities and individuals who object to furthering or
participating in abortion under programs funded by the Department's
yearly appropriations acts; (4) conscience protections under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act related to assisted suicide,
individual mandate, and other matters of conscience; (5) conscience
protections for objections to counseling and referral for certain
services in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage; (6) conscience protections
related to the performance of advanced directives; (7) conscience
protections related to Global Health Programs to the extent
administered by the Secretary; (8) exemptions from compulsory health
care or services generally and under specific programs for hearing
screenings, occupational illness testing, vaccination, and mental
health treatment; and (9) protections for religious nonmedical health
care.
Alternatives: Maintaining the status quo by enforcing 45 CFR part
88 as it currently exists creates a significant risk of unaddressed
violations of conscience laws, and leaves few remedies available due to
OCR's administrative enforcement scheme and court decisions holding
that Congress did not incorporate into its conscience statutes for
parties to file private rights of action in the courts.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Protection of religious beliefs and
moral convictions is a broad qualitative benefit
[[Page 57861]]
that serves individual rights and society as a whole, and protection of
conscience reduces barriers to entry, combats attrition, and increases
diversity of providers in the health care field. Costs of $311 million
in the first year and $124.6 million per year in years 2 through 5 are
estimated to be incurred for familiarization with the law, preparation
of notices and assurances of compliance, compliance procedures and
voluntary remedial efforts. Costs for OCR enforcement are $1 million in
the first year and $1 million per year in years 2 through 5.
Risks: Enforcement of these conscience laws could risk reduction in
access to health care services in low provider populated areas.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/26/18 83 FR 3880
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/27/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Sarah Bayko-Albrecht, Supervisory Analyst,
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 800 368-1019, TDD
Phone: 800 537-7697, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0945-AA10
HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
46. Revising Outdated Requirements for Opioid Treatment Providers
(OTPS)
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)
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This planned deregulatory action would revise 42 CFR part
8 to reduce outmoded requirements. First, SAMSHA may streamline the
regulation by deleting now outdated requirements pertaining to
transitional certification for opioid treatment programs (OTPs). This
change will help make the regulation less confusing by removing a
provision that no longer applies.
Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim
maintenance treatment program approval.
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.
This planned deregulatory action would revise 42 CFR part 8 to
reduce outmoded requirements. First, SAMSHA may streamline the
regulation by deleting now outdated requirements pertaining to
transitional certification for opioid treatment programs (OTPs). This
change will help make the regulation less confusing by removing a
provision that no longer applies.
Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim
maintenance treatment program approval.
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.
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: The transition provisions are outdated and no longer apply.
SAMSHA anticipates most stakeholders will support permitting private,
for-profit entities to serve as OTPs but some may be skeptical of these
entities as compared to nonprofits. Rescinding the reporting
requirements for providers treating up to 275 patients should hold
minimal risk since these providers still are bound by other
certification requirements such as recordkeeping, etc. These reporting
requirements initially were added in July 2016 (81 FR 66191).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
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 20857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0930-AA27
HHS--SAMHSA
47. Coordinating Care and Information Sharing in the Treatment
of Substance Use Disorders
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: SAMHSA is proposing broad changes to Confidentiality of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 2, also known as 42 CFR part 2 to remove barriers to coordinated
care and permit additional sharing of information among providers and
part 2 programs assisting patients with substance use disorders (SUDs).
Statement of Need: SAMHSA is proposing broad changes to
Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 2, also known as 42 CFR part 2 to remove
barriers to coordinated care and permit additional sharing of
information among providers and part 2 programs assisting patients with
substance use disorders (SUDs).
Summary of Legal Basis: To be determined.
Alternatives: The alternatives include not making these changes or
making changes to part 2 more limited in scope (i.e., only in one or
two sections).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is not expected to be
economically significant. As we move toward publication, estimates of
the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included in the rule.
Risks: SAMHSA believes the many stakeholders will support efforts
to make it easier for patients and providers to share information under
part 2. However, some commenters may
[[Page 57862]]
believe these changes will further undermine privacy protection under
part 2 and lead individuals who may seek treatment to not seek
treatment for fear of disclosure of their SUD.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
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 20857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0930-AA32
HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
Proposed Rule Stage
48. Food Standards: General Principles and Food Standards Modernization
(Reopening of Comment Period)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 336; 21 U.S.C. 341; 21
U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 130.5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is reopening the comment period on a proposed rule,
issued jointly with USDA/FSIS in 2005, that proposed to establish
general principles that would be the first step in modernizing and
updating the framework for food standards (also known as standards of
identity). We are reopening the comment period because of the time that
has elapsed since the publication of the proposed rule during which
time there have been additional technological advances and other
changes in the food industry which could help inform the development of
a modernized food standards framework.
Statement of Need: Standards of identity for foods are regulations
Congress authorized FDA to issue to promote honesty and fair dealing in
the interest of consumers. FDA's standards of identity have proved
valuable in assuring that food products are consistent across different
manufacturers. They are important for international trade as well as
domestic trade and are critical to government expenditures on food for
the military, for WIC (women, infants, and children) programs, and in
school feeding programs. However, questions have been raised about
whether the regulations concerning standards of identity should be
revised in light of changing consumer expectations and subsequent
developments in food technology, and global trade. In 1996, FDA and
USDA established a task force to discuss the current and future role of
food standards. The task force determined there were several regulatory
options including making no change to the food standards, eliminating
all food standards, or using resources to review and revise the food
standards to protect consumers without inhibiting technological
advances in food preparation and marketing. FDA and FSIS ultimately
decided to propose amending the petition process so the standards of
identity would be more internally consistent, flexible for
manufacturers, and easier to administer while ensuring product quality
and uniformity to consumers, and did so in 2005.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA has established over 280 food standards
of identity, in addition to standards of quality and fill of container,
under the authority set forth in section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341). This section provides
in part:
Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary (of Health and Human
Services) such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the
interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and
establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as
practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a
reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of
container.
The standards of identity, quality, and fill of container for foods
regulated by FDA are codified in title 21, parts 130 to 169 (21 CFR
parts 130 to 169). FDA food standards are established under the common
or usual name of a food and often specify the content of the food,
generally in terms of the types of ingredients that it must contain
(i.e., mandatory ingredients), and that it may contain (i.e., optional
ingredients). FDA food standards may specify minimum and maximum levels
of constituents. They also may describe the manufacturing process when
that process has a bearing on the identity of the finished food.
Finally, FDA food standards may also include provisions related to
label declaration of ingredients and nomenclature of the food depending
on the form, packing medium, and optional ingredients used.
Alternatives: FDA is proposing to reopen the comment period on the
2005 proposal, to allow for us to update the record and inform
decisionmaking on standards of identity. The only alternative would be
to open a docket and request comments and data on the issue generally,
which would be a step backward. FDA does not believe it is in a
position to develop a new proposed rule without affording stakeholders
and the public a chance to comment and provide new data and
information. After we have reviewed this information, we will be in a
position to either publish a new proposed rule or to issue a final rule
based on the full record.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There is no cost/benefit analysis
associated with reopening a proposed rule to solicit updated comments
and information. The preliminary regulatory impact analysis in the
proposed rule evaluated various options and concluded that taking the
action covered in the proposed rule will generate net social benefits,
and concluded that the social costs of taking the proposed action are
likely to be small. The analysis found that most of the other options
were likely to have lower net benefits because they had lower benefits,
higher costs, or both.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/29/95 60 FR 67492
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 04/29/96 .......................
NPRM................................ 05/20/05 70 FR 29214
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/18/05 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Andrea Krause, Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
240 402-2371, Fax: 301 436-2636, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0583-AC72
RIN: 0910-AC54
[[Page 57863]]
HHS--FDA
49. Mammography Quality Standards Act; Amendments to Part 900
Regulations
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 health care providers.
Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to update the mammography
regulations that were issued under the Mammography Quality Standards
Act of 1992 (MQSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act). FDA is taking this action to address changes in mammography
technology and mammography processes.
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:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Erica Payne, Regulatory Counsel, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, WO 66,
Room 5522, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-3999, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH04
HHS--FDA
50. Medical Device De Novo Classification Process
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(h); 21 U.S.C. 360c, 360i-360j; 21
U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374
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 clarifying 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:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 10903 New
Hampshire Avenue, Building 66, Room 5508, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
Phone: 301 796-6579, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH53
HHS--FDA
51. Nonprescription Drug Product With an Additional Condition for
Nonprescription Use
Priority: Other 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
nonprescription drug products. The proposed rule would establish
requirements for a drug product that
[[Page 57864]]
could be marketed as a nonprescription drug product with an additional
condition that an applicant must implement to ensure appropriate self-
selection, appropriate actual use, or both by consumers.
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 included in
labeling. FDA is proposing regulations that would establish the
requirement for a drug product could be marketed as a nonprescription
drug product with an additional condition that an applicant must
implement to ensure appropriate self-selection or appropriate actual
use or both for consumers.
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................................ 08/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
52. Format and Content of Reports Intended To Demonstrate Substantial
Equivalence
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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 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................................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Document
Control Center, Building 71, Room G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone:
877 287-1373, Fax: 877 287-1426, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AH89
[[Page 57865]]
HHS--FDA
53. Nutrient Content Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 343, and 371
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 101.65 (revision).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule would update the definition for the
implied nutrient content claim ``healthy'' to be consistent with
current nutrition science and federal dietary guidelines. The proposed
rule would revise the requirements for when the claim ``healthy'' can
be voluntarily used in the labeling of human food products so that the
claim reflects current science and dietary guidelines and help
consumers maintain healthy dietary practices.
Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to redefine healthy to make it
more consistent with current public health recommendations, including
those captured in recent changes to the Nutrition Facts label. The
existing definition for healthy is based on nutrition recommendations
regarding intake of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and specific
nutrients Americans were not getting enough of in the early 1990s.
Nutrition recommendations have evolved since that time; recommended
diets now focus on dietary patterns, which includes getting enough of
certain food groups such as fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and
whole grains. Chronic diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and
stroke, are the leading causes of death and disability in the United
States and diet is a contributing factor to these diseases. Claims on
food packages such as healthy can provide quick signals to consumers
about the healthfulness of a food or beverage, thereby making it easier
for busy consumers to make healthy choices.
FDA is proposing to update the existing nutrient content claim
definition of Healthy based on the food groups recommended by the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and also include nutrients to limit to
ensure that foods bearing the claim can help consumers build more
healthful diets to reduce their risk of diet-related chronic diseases.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is issuing this proposed rule under
sections 201(n), 301(a), 403(a), 403(r), and 701(a) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(n), 331(a),
343(a), 343(r), and 371(a)). These sections authorize the agency to
adopt regulations that prohibit labeling that bears claims that
characterize the level of a nutrient which is of a type required to be
declared in nutrition labeling unless the claim is made in accordance
with a regulatory definition established by FDA. Pursuant to this
authority, FDA issued a regulation defining the healthy implied
nutrient content claim, which is codified at 21 CFR 101.65. This
proposed rule would update the existing definition to be consistent
with current federal dietary guidance.
Alternatives: Alternative 1: Codify the policy in the current
enforcement discretion guidance.
In 2016, FDA published Use of the Term `Healthy' in the Labeling of
Human Food Products: Guidance for Industry. This guidance was intended
to advise food manufacturers of FDA's intent to exercise enforcement
discretion relative to foods that use the implied nutrient content
claim healthy on their labels which: (1) Are not low in total fat, but
have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated
fats; or (2) contain at least 10 percent of the Daily Value (DV) per
reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.
One alternative is to codify the policy in the current enforcement
discretion. Although guidance is non-binding, we assume that most
packaged food manufacturers are aware of the guidance and, over the
past 2 years, have already made any adjustments to their products or
product packaging. Therefore, we assume that this alternative would
have no costs to industry and no benefits to consumers.
Alternative 2: Extend the compliance date by 1 year.
Extending the anticipated proposed compliance date on the rule
updating the definition by 1 year would reduce costs to industry as
they would have more time to change products that may be affected by
the rule or potentially coordinate label changes with already scheduled
label changes. On the other hand, a longer compliance date runs the
risk of confusing consumers that may not understand whether a packaged
food product labeled healthy follows the old definition or the updated
one.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Food products bearing the healthy
claim currently make up a small percentage (5%) of total packaged
foods. Relabeling and reformulating costs can range from about $2,000/
UPC to relabel, $800,000/formula to reformulate. We currently
anticipate that total cost to industry will be about $15 million,
annualized at 7% in perpetuity.
Updating the definition of healthy to align with current dietary
recommendations help consumers build more healthful diets to reduce
their risk of diet-related chronic diseases. We currently anticipate
the monetized benefits to be around $100 million, annualized at 7% in
perpetuity.
There are no cost savings.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Vincent De Jesus, Nutritionist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, (HFS-830), Room 3D-031, 5100 Paint
Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1774, Fax: 301
436-1191, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AI13
HHS--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH)
Final Rule Stage
54. Compliance With Statutory Program Integrity Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300-300a-6
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This action would finalize revisions to the Title X
regulations to ensure compliance with, and enhance the implementation
of, various statutory program integrity requirements, including the
statutory requirement that none of the funds appropriated for Title X
may be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
Statement of Need: This action should enhance compliance with the
statutory program integrity requirements applicable to, and purpose and
goals of, the Title X program (especially those related to section
1008), the appropriations provisos and riders addressing the Title X
program, and other obligations and requirements established under other
Federal law. The action should also enhance
[[Page 57866]]
programmatic transparency regarding the provision of Title X services
(with respect to both the identity of the providers and the services
being provided by such entities).
Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has legal authority to issue
and amend regulations to implement Title X of the Public Health Service
(PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300 300a-6), in order to establish the
requirements applicable to projects for family planning services,
pursuant to section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
300a-4; section 1006 also provides priority for low-income families.
Section 1001 of the PHS Act establishes certain parameters for
voluntary Title X family planning projects/programs, including the
offering of a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning
methods and services (including natural family planning methods,
infertility services, and services for adolescents) and the
encouragement, to the extent practical, of family participation.
Section 1008 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-6, establishes the
prohibition on the use of the funds appropriated for Title X ``in
programs where abortion is a method of family planning.''
In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an
annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title
X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective;
that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way
tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative
proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants
certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in
the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide
counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into
engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with
State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse,
child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See, e.g.,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, Div. H, 207-
208, Title II, 132 Stat. 348, 716-17.
Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title
X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of
individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or
refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-
7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon
Amendment, see, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law
115-141, Div. H, 507(d), 132 Stat. 348, 764 (2018).
The Department has legal authority to issue and amend regulations
to implement Title X of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C.
300 300a-6), in order to establish the requirements applicable to
projects for family planning services, pursuant to section 1006 of the
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-4; section 1006 also provides
priority for low-income families. Section 1001 of the PHS Act
establishes certain parameters for voluntary Title X family planning
projects/programs, including the offering of a broad range of
acceptable and effective family planning methods and services
(including natural family planning methods, infertility services, and
services for adolescents) and the encouragement, to the extent
practical, of family participation. Section 1008 of the PHS Act, 42
U.S.C. 300a-6, establishes the prohibition on the use of the funds
appropriated for Title X ``in programs where abortion is a method of
family planning.''
In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an
annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title
X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective;
that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way
tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative
proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants
certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in
the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide
counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into
engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with
State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse,
child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See, e.g.,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, Div. H, 207-
208, Title II, 132 Stat. 348, 716-17.
Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title
X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of
individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or
refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-
7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon
Amendment, see, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law
115-141, Div. H, 507(d), 132 Stat. 348, 764 (2018).
Alternatives: The Department continues to consider alternative
approaches that would ensure (1) sufficient compliance with the
statutory program integrity requirements and purpose and goals of the
Title X program, the appropriations provisos and riders addressing the
Title X program, and other obligations and requirements established
under other Federal law, and (2) transparency regarding the provision
of services (with respect to both the identity of the providers and the
services being provided by such entities).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes proposed will improve
the integrity of Title X program, especially with respect to ensuring
that projects and providers do not fund, support, or promote abortion
as a method of family planning, and enhance compliance with statutory
requirements and appropriations riders and provisos. In addition, it is
expected that the changes will facilitate the ability of an expanded
number of entities to participate in Title X, including by removal of
abortion counseling and referral requirements that potentially violate
Federal health care conscience protections; this should serve to expand
and enhance patient service and care. The proposed rule estimated $13.6
million in annualized costs at a 7% discount rate.
Risks: None known.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/01/18 83 FR 25502
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/31/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Valerie Huber, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Health,
200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 690-7694,
Fax: 202 401-8034, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0937-ZA00
RIN: 0937-AA07
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
55. Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Regulatory Provisions
To Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS-
3347-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
[[Page 57867]]
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Secs. 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: The Secretary has statutory authority to
issue these rules under the Nursing Home Reform Act, (part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA '87), Pub. L. 100-203,
101 Stat. 1330 (1987)), which added sections 1819 and 1919 to the Act;
those provisions authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations that
are ``adequate to protect the health, safety, welfare, and rights of
residents and to promote the effective and efficient use of public
moneys.'' (Sections 1819(f)(1) and 1919(f)(1) of the Act). In addition,
the Act authorizes the Secretary to impose ``such other requirements
relating to the health and safety [and well-being] of residents as [he]
may find necessary.'' (Sections 1819(d)(4)(B), 1919(d)(4)(B) of the
Act). Under Sections 1819(c)(1)(A)(xi) and 1919 (c)(1)(A)(xi) of the
Act, the Secretary may also establish ``other right[s]'' for residents,
in addition to those expressly set forth in the statutes and
regulations, to ``protect and promote the rights of each resident.''
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:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
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
56. CY 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (CMS-9926-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, title I
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 149; 45 CFR 153; 45 CFR 155; 45 CFR 156.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would set forth payment
parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment programs;
cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for issuers offering plans on
Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State-based Exchanges using the
Federal platform. It would also provide additional standards for
several other Affordable Care Act programs.
Statement of Need: This rule will propose standards related to the
risk adjustment program for the 2020 benefit year, as well as certain
modifications that will promote state flexibility and control over
their insurance markets, reduce burden on stakeholders, and improve
program integrity.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111148) and the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111152),
which amended and revised several provisions of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: We considered slight variants of the proposed
policies related to the risk adjustment program and standards related
to the Exchanges.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We anticipate that the proposed
changes will include some initial costs on stakeholders, but generate
savings over the long term. 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, issuers in the
individual and small group market will not have important information
for rate setting for the 2020 plan year, and changes applicable to
qualified health plans will not be in place in time for the 2020 plan
year.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Lindsey Murtagh, Senior Policy Advisor, Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4106, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT37
HHS--CMS
57. Exchange Program Integrity (CMS-9922-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 155; 45 CFR 156.
[[Page 57868]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes improvements to Exchange program
integrity, ensuring that eligible enrollees receive the correct
advanced payments of the premium tax credit, and conducting effective
and efficient oversight of State-Based Exchanges.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose changes to
strengthen program integrity related to oversight of State Exchanges,
and the operation of Exchanges.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111148) and the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111152),
which amended and revised several provisions of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: The proposed policies are important for program
integrity reasons. We considered variations on the proposed policies.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We do not anticipate the proposed
rule to be a significant regulatory action, but do anticipate it would
generate costs on stakeholders. We believe these costs will be offset
by improvements in program integrity.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, important
program integrity improvements will be delayed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: Jeff Wu, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, MS: 733H.02,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4305,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT53
HHS--CMS
58. Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2020
(CMS-4185-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 422; 42 CFR 423.
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 2020.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to make revisions to the
Medicare Advantage (MA) and Prescription Drug Benefit programs to
implement applicable provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
and based on our continued experience in the administration of the
programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of
the Social Security Act. It also implements sections 50323, 50311, and
50354 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
Alternatives: This rule implements provisions that require public
notice and comment and are necessary for the upcoming contract year. We
will continue to explore additional alternatives as we develop the
rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of the
anticipated costs and benefits of this proposed rule indicate savings
and burden reduction for the government, MA organizations, prescription
drug plan sponsors, and providers. We expect some savings will also be
passed onto beneficiaries in the form of increased benefit offerings
and reduced premiums or cost sharing. Numerical estimates are pending
and as we move toward publication, estimates of costs and benefits will
be included in the proposed rule.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Michael Dibella, Director, Division of Policy,
Analysis, and Planning, Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-
22-18, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4480,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT59
HHS--CMS
59. Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral
Regulations (CMS-1720-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395nn
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 411.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes to address any undue regulatory impact
and burden of the physician self-referral law.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to facilitate the
successful transition from volume-based to value-based payment for
health care services and promote care coordination among health care
providers and suppliers who furnish care to Medicare beneficiaries and
other patients. This rule is also necessary to bring needed clarity and
flexibility for parties subject to the physician self-referral law's
prohibitions on referrals and Medicare claims submission.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule interprets section 1877 of the
Social Security Act.
Alternatives: We will continue to explore alternatives as we
develop the rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We believe that this rule could have
a positive impact on health outcomes of beneficiaries and other
American patients because providers, suppliers and physicians will be
able to better coordinate patient care without running afoul of the
physician self-referral law's referral and Medicare claims submission
prohibitions. We also believe the proposed regulatory reforms may make
compliance with the physician self-referral law more straightforward.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFI Notice With Comment Period...... 06/25/18 83 FR 29524
RFI Comment Period End.............. 08/28/18
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Lisa Wilson, Technical Advisor, Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Center for Medicare, MS: C4-25-02, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-8852, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AT64
[[Page 57869]]
HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Proposed Rule Stage
60. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Secs. 474(f), 479 and 1102 of the Social Security
Act
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 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............................... 03/15/18 83 FR 11449
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/13/18
NPRM................................ 05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 401-5789, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC72
BILLING CODE: 4150-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was
established 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 that mission requires the dedication of more than
240,000 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 those goals, we are continually strengthening our
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and
Government agencies--at the Federal, State, local, tribal, 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
2018 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's authorities.
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 in order 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 2019, DHS plans to finalize the following actions:
0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions;
18 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions (including
information collections);
4 Executive Order 13771-exempt regulations; and
10 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 those 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 is
particularly concerned 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.
[[Page 57870]]
The Fall 2018 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from
several DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (the 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 2018 regulatory plan.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
USCIS is the government agency that administers the nation's lawful
immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by
efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits
while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our
values. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several regulatory
actions to support that mission.
Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible
for Employment Authorization. USCIS will 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 will propose to issue regulations with the focus of improving the
H-1B nonimmigrant program and petitioning process. Such initiatives
will 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 Program
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 on Public Charge Grounds). Additionally, USCIS will
propose to update its biometrics regulations to eliminate multiple
references to specific biometric types, and to allow for the expansion
of the types of biometrics required to establish and verify an
identity. The goal of this proposal will be to establish consistent
identity enrollment and verification policies and processes, and to
provide clear proposals on how biometrics will be used in the
immigration process. (USCIS Biometrics Collection for Collection for
Consistent, Efficient and Effective Operations).
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). USCIS will also 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).
Lastly, USCIS will publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit public input on proposals that would increase monitoring and
oversight of EB-5 projects, and encourage investment in rural areas.
(EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Realignment.)
Asylum Reforms. USCIS will propose regulations aimed at deterring
the fraudulent filing of asylum applications for the purpose of
obtaining Employment Authorization Documents. (Employment Authorization
Documents for Asylum Applicants). USCIS will also propose to amend its
regulations to streamline credible fear screening determinations in
response to the Southwest Border crises. (Credible Fear Reform
Regulation).
Adjustment of Status Process Improvements. USCIS will propose to
update regulatory provisions to improve the efficiency in the
processing of adjustment of status applications, to reduce processing
times, to improve data quality provided to partner agencies, to reduce
the potential for visa retrogression, to promote efficient usage of
available immigrant visas, and to discourage fraudulent and frivolous
filings. (Updating Adjustment of Status Procedures for More Efficient
Processing and Immigrant Visa Usage). USCIS will also propose updates
to its regulations to improve the efficiency of USCIS processing of the
Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions. (Improvements to the
Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions).
Electronic Processing of Immigration Benefit Requests. USCIS will
propose to amend its regulations to mandate electronic submission for
all immigration benefit requests, explain the requirements associated
with electronic processing, and allow end-to-end digital processing.
This proposal would enhance efficiency and efficacy in USCIS
operations, and improve the experience for those applying for
immigration benefits.
United States 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
[[Page 57871]]
regulation, enforcement, maritime presence, and public and private
partnership foster increased maritime safety, security, and
stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties,
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and
other emergencies.
In fiscal year 2019, the Coast Guard plans to finalize 0 regulatory
actions and 11 deregulatory actions. The Coast Guard is highlighting
the following Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions:
Amendments to the Marine Radar Observer Refresher Training
Regulations. The Coast Guard will propose removing obsolete portions of
the radar observer endorsement requirements and harmonizing the
endorsement with the merchant mariner credential. Active mariners with
radar observer endorsements having one year of relevant sea service
within the previous five years and having served in a position using
radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on board a radar-
equipped vessel, or who have met certain instructor requirements, would
be able to renew their radar observer endorsement without completing a
radar course. This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for
mariners to carry a certificate of training if the radar observer
endorsement is on the MMC, and would allow the endorsement and MMC to
expire at the same time. Elimination of the requirement to take a radar
refresher or re-certification course every five years would reduce
burden on affected mariners without affecting safety. (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.)
TWIC Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date. The Coast Guard
has proposed to partially delay the effective date of the final rule
entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
Reader Requirements,'' published in the Federal Register on August 23,
2016. The rule would delay the requirements for facilities that handle
bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from vessels, as well as
facilities that receive vessels that carry CDC, but do not transfer it
to the facility. The Coast Guard is considering this delay to allow
time to re-evaluate the ``asset categorization'' methodology used to
determine which facilities were considered high risk. Currently, the
rule is scheduled to be implemented after the Department of Homeland
Security submits the report to Congress on the effectiveness of the
TWIC program, required by the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential Security Card Program Improvements and Assessment Act (Pub.
L. 114-278). This rule would delay the effective date for the affected
facilities until August 23, 2021.
Removal of Certain International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as
Amended (STCW) Training Requirements. The Coast Guard will propose to
remove three Coast Guard merchant mariner training requirements related
to STCW officer and rating endorsements from its regulations in 46 CFR
parts 11 and 12. The Coast Guard has determined these training
requirements exceed current international certification and training
standards of the STCW and cause a misalignment between the training of
U.S. mariners and the mariners of other countries. The proposed rule
would remove the following training requirements: Leadership and
managerial skills training to qualify as master of vessels of less than
500 gross tons limited to near-coastal waters; bridge resource
management training to qualify as officer in charge of a navigational
watch on vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to near-coastal
waters; and computer systems and maintenance training to qualify as
electro-technical rating on vessels powered by main propulsion
machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP or more. Removal of these training
requirements would reduce the burden on affected mariners without
affecting safety.
Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers. The Coast Guard will propose an
alternative to the existing regulatory requirement that a person in
charge (PIC) of a fuel transfer on an inspected vessel hold a Merchant
Mariner Credential with either an officer endorsement or Tankerman-PIC
endorsement. The proposed rule would add the option of designating the
PIC using a letter of designation (LOD), which is currently an option
for uninspected vessels but not inspected vessels. The LOD designates
the holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil and states that the
holder has received sufficient formal instruction from the operator or
agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability to safely and
adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC. Our
decades of experience with LODs on uninspected vessels indicates we can
safely provide this option to persons on inspected vessels. Allowing
the PIC to hold an LOD instead of an Merchant Mariner Credential would
relieve certain personnel from the burden of obtaining and renewing an
Merchant Mariner Credential every 5 years, and would create flexibility
as to who may serve as a PIC of fuel transfers on inspected vessels.
This option would be available only for transfers of fuel; the PIC
requirements for vessels transferring cargo would remain unchanged.
(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
CBP is the Federal agency principally responsible for the security
of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry into
the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and
enforcement mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and
travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission,
that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the
United States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves
improving security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means
extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases;
servicing all people, vehicles, and cargo entering the United States;
maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft
of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its 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
[[Page 57872]]
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 regulatory and deregulatory
actions for fiscal year 2019.
Collection of Biometric Data from Aliens 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. In order to provide the legal framework for DHS to begin
a seamless biometric entry-exit system, DHS intends to issue an interim
final rule to amend the regulations to remove the references to pilot
programs and the port limitation. In addition, to enable CBP to make
the process for verifying the identity of alien's more efficient,
accurate, and secure by using facial recognition technology, this rule
would also provide that alien travelers may be required to provide
photographs upon entry and/or departure.
Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders--Automation of CBP Form I-94W. 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 would instead provide this information to CBP
electronically through ESTA prior to application for admission to the
United States.
Technical Corrections to Reflect the Consolidation of Vessel Repair
Unit Locations. CBP intends to issue a final rule to update provisions
relating to the declaration, entry and dutiable status of repair
expenditures made abroad for certain vessels to reflect the port of New
Orleans, Louisiana as the only Vessel Repair Unit (VRU) location. The
amendment will improve the efficiency of vessel repair entry
processing, ensure the proper assessment and collection of duties, and
make the regulations more transparent. This rule is a deregulatory
action under Executive Order 13771. (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.)
Modernization of the Customs Brokers Regulations. CBP intends to
issue a proposed rule to amend the requirements for customs brokers.
Specifically, CBP will propose to expand the scope of the national
permit authority to allow national permit holders to conduct any type
of customs business throughout the customs territory of the United
States. To accomplish this, CBP will propose to eliminate broker
districts and district permits, which also eliminates the need for
district permit waivers and for brokers to maintain district offices.
Additionally, CBP will propose to update the responsible supervision
and control oversight framework to better reflect the modern business
environment. This rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order
13771. (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 a
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 rule is a
deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. (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.)
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, in the coming year, CBP expects to continue to issue
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and
implement trade benefit programs. For a discussion of CBP regulations
regarding the customs revenue function, see the regulatory plan of the
Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA's mission is helping people before, during, and after
disasters.
FEMA is working on a deregulatory action titled Update to FEMA's
Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures. That rule would revise FEMA
regulations pertaining to rulemaking by removing sections that are
outdated or do not affect the public and update provisions that affect
the public's participation in the rulemaking process.
FEMA is also working on a regulatory action titled Factors
Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for Individual
Assistance for a Major Disaster. This regulation would address the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013's requirement that FEMA 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
[[Page 57873]]
any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2019.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of DHS and one of
the three Department components charged with the criminal and 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 2019, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on three priority
regulations: (1) A final rule to address the detention, processing, and
release of alien children; (2) a final rule to increase the fees paid
to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to recover costs for
services; and (3) a proposed rule to replace ``duration of status''
with a maximum period of stay for certain classes of nonimmigrants.
Below are ICE's significant regulatory actions for the coming
fiscal year:
Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and
Unaccompanied Alien Children. ICE, in concert with CBP and the
Department of Health and Human Services, will finalize a 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 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 relevant and substantive terms
of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the
FSA and the 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.
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program. ICE will finalize a rule 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. The rule will
adjust DHS's fees for individuals and organizations. The SEVP fee
schedule was last adjusted in a rule published on September 26, 2008.
Establishing a Maximum Period of Authorized Stay for F-1 and Other
Nonimmigrants. ICE will publish a proposed rule that modifies the
period of authorized stay for certain categories of nonimmigrants
traveling to the United States. The rule would change the authorized
stay from ``duration of status'' and replace it with a maximum period
of authorized stay, and options for extensions, for each applicable
visa category. This change will help eliminate confusion over the
length of authorized period of stay for nonimmigrants to lawfully
remain in the United States and will assist efforts to reduce overstay
rates.
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
planned TSA actions for fiscal year (FY) 2019.
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 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 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 over-the-road bus owner/
operators. The NPRM will also propose provisions to implement TSA's
statutory requirement to recover its cost of vetting through user fees.
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
[[Page 57874]]
Identification Display Area. The FAA Extension, Safety, and 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. 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
sensitive security information distribution statement, one
significantly abbreviated, to address comments on the IFR that the
current marking requirements are unduly burdensome. TSA is considering
further deregulatory actions, including aligning the requirement for
the handling of Federal Flight Deck Officer names consistent with the
handling of Federal Air Marshal names (two names listed together would
be sensitive security information, not a single Federal Flight Deck
Officer name).
Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals;
Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees. This rule will
streamline regulations and reduce burden for the alien flight student
program. This action finalizes an IFR for rule that implements a
statutory requirement, as well as addresses comments received in
response to a reopening of the comment period on the IFR. The alien
flight student 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 Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, TSA is considering revising these requirements to
reduce costs and industry burden. For example, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the program are estimated to be overly
burdensome due to the requirement for paper records. 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 alien flight student 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 2019.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2019
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise the DHS Fall 2018 regulatory plan follows.
DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)
Prerule Stage
61. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Realignment
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. 1153(b)(5); 8 U.S.C. 1186(a); 8 U.S.C.
1153
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6; 8 CFR 216.6.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to
publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public
input on proposals that would increase monitoring and oversight of the
EB-5 program as well as encourage investment in rural areas. DHS would
solicit feedback on proposals associated with redefining components of
the job creation requirement, and defining conditions for regional
center designations and operations.
Statement of Need: DHS will solicit public input on proposals that
would increase monitoring and oversight, encourage investment in rural
areas, redefine components of the job creation requirement, and define
conditions for regional center designations and operations.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based on the authority of DHS
to designate regional centers and to permit investors to establish
reasonable methodologies to demonstrate job creation under 8 U.S.C.
1153 note (Public Law 102-395, sec. 610 (as amended)), for admission to
the United States as lawful permanent residents on a conditional basis.
In addition, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5) provides eligibility to aliens who
invest in new commercial enterprises which will create jobs and 8
U.S.C. 1186a provides requirements for removal of conditions on
permanent resident status, the administration and interpretation of
which is left to DHS.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC26
DHS--USCIS
Proposed Rule Stage
62. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and 1183; . .
.
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212 to 214; 8 CFR 248.
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
[[Page 57875]]
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 in terms of potentially not
being able to adjust status. Other anticipated costs to individuals
requesting immigration benefits are associated with the opportunity
cost of time to complete and file required forms and documentation,
possible costs associated with any additional background checks, and
unintended and indirect costs associated with the loss of public
assistance due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public
benefits programs for those who are otherwise eligible. 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................................ 10/10/18 83 FR 51114
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/10/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: CIS No. 2499-10, Transferred from RIN 1115-
AF45.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
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
63. Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B
Petitions on Behalf of Cap Subject Aliens
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 H-1B beneficiaries
who may be counted under section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) (``H-1B regular cap'') or under section
214(g)(5)(C) of the INA (``H-1B master's cap''). 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. employers has often exceeded the numerical
limitation. This rule is intended to allow U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to more efficiently manage the intake and
selection 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: Consistent with the Buy American and Hire
American, E.O. 13788's direction to suggest reforms to help ensure that
H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition
beneficiaries, this regulation would help to streamline the process for
administering the H-1B cap and increase the probability of the total
number of petitions selected under the cap filed for H-1B beneficiaries
who possess a master's or higher degree from a U.S. institution of
higher education each fiscal year.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security's
authority for these proposed regulatory amendments is found in various
sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq. General authority for issuing the proposed rule is found in
section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the
Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality
laws, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which vests all
of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the Secretary
to issue regulations. Further authority for the regulatory amendments
in the proposed rule is found in section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1184(a)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe by regulation
the terms and conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants; section
214(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), which authorizes the Secretary to
prescribe how an importing employer may petition for an H-1B
nonimmigrant worker, and the information that an importing employer
must provide in the petition; and section 214(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1184(g), which provides the H-1B numerical limitations and various
exceptions to those limitations.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would aim to
result in better resource management and predictability for both USCIS
and petitioning H-1B employers. An electronic registration process
could benefit most of the regulated public by potentially reducing the
overall cost and time involved in petitioning for H-1B nonimmigrant
workers. However, some additional costs may be incurred from the
electronic registration process to some petitioners.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/03/11 76 FR 11686
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/02/11
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB71
[[Page 57876]]
DHS--USCIS
64. 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: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to administer
and enforce the immigration and nationality laws including establishing
regulations deemed necessary to carry out his authority, and section
102 of the Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA section 103(a).
INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the Secretary
with authority to make visas available to immigrants seeking to engage
in a new commercial enterprise in which the immigrant has invested and
which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time
employment for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. Further, section 610 of
Public Law 102-395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) created the Immigrant Investor
Pilot Program and authorized the Secretary to set aside visas for
individuals who invest in regional centers created for the purpose of
concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones, and was last
amended by Public Law 107-296.
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, transparency,
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................................ 03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC11
DHS--USCIS
65. 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, 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: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112,
and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), charge the
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) with administration and
enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws. See INA section
103, 8 U.S.C. 1103. This rule will significantly enhance the ability of
USCIS to effectively manage and monitor the H-1B program.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the cost
and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 57877]]
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377,
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC13
DHS--USCIS
66. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Biometrics Collection for
Consistent, Efficient, and Effective Operations
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(a); 8. U.S.C. 1444 and 1446; 8
U.S.C. 1365a and 1365b; 8 U.S.C. 1304(a); Pub. L. 107-56; Pub. L. 107-
173; Pub. L. 109-248, sec. 402(a) and 402(b)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C); 8 CFR
103.16; 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi); 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3); 8 CFR 204.5(p)(4); 8
CFR 208.10; 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(i); 8 CFR 210.5(b)(2); 8 CFR 214.1(f); 8
CFR 214.11(a); 8 CFR 214.11(m)(2); 8 CFR 236.5; 8 CFR 240.68(b); 8 CFR
245.21(b); 8 CFR 245a.2(d); 8 CFR 245a.4(b)(4); 8 CFR 214.2(w)(15); 8
CFR 215.8; 8 CFR 244.17; 8 CFR 245a.12(d); 8 CFR 264.1(g); 8 CFR
264.2(d); 8 CFR 333.1(a) to (b); 8 CFR 316.4(a).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to
update its regulations to eliminate multiple references to specific
biometric types, and to allow for the expansion of the types of
biometrics required to establish and verify an identity. DHS will also
propose to modify age restrictions where they exist to detect, deter,
or prevent human trafficking of children; establish consistent identity
enrollment and verification policies and processes; and align U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) biometric collection with
other immigration operations. The DHS proposal will provide a
definition to the public on the term biometric and how biometrics will
be used in the immigration process.
Statement of Need: As DHS seeks to better secure the immigration
process by confirming the identity of individuals encountered, the use
of biometrics needs to be expanded to account for different methods of
biometric collection beyond fingerprints and to remove age
restrictions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the exact
cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In general, DHS
anticipates that stakeholders will incur costs due to the increased
collection of biometrics and the expansion of the types of biometrics
required to establish and verify an identity. The anticipated costs to
individuals submitting biometrics are associated with biometric fees
and travel costs, and the opportunity cost of time in completing and
filing required forms and the time associated with travel. DHS
anticipates benefits of those individuals seeking immigration benefits
and to the government.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Lee Bowes, Deputy Associate Director, Immigration
Records and Identity Services Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC14
DHS--USCIS
67. 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: This action may affect the private sector under
Public Law 104-4.
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.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS anticipates that there would be
two primary impacts that DHS can estimate and quantify: The cost-
savings accruing to forgone future filings by certain H-4 dependent
spouses, and labor turnover costs that employers of H-4 workers could
incur when their employees' EADs are terminated. Some U.S. workers
would benefit from this proposed rule by having a better chance at
obtaining jobs that some of the population of the H-4 workers currently
hold, as the proposed rule would no longer allow H-4 workers to enter
the labor market early.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200,
[[Page 57878]]
Phone: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB92
RIN: 1615-AC15
DHS--USCIS
68. Electronic Processing of Immigration Benefit Requests
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 44 U.S.C. 3504
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 104; 8 CFR 204.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose
to: (1) Mandate electronic submission for all immigration benefit
requests and explain the requirements associated with electronic
processing; and (2) make changes to existing regulations to allow end-
to-end digital processing.
Statement of Need: To address the inefficiency of relying on paper,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is fully transitioning to a
digital environment for processing immigration benefit requests. Agency
experience demonstrates that the electronic processing of benefit
requests is more efficient and effective than the traditional paper
processes, during the immediate request, throughout the immigration
life cycle, and beyond. eProcessing will largely eliminate the enormous
cost of paper intake, shipping and storage, strengthen information
security, and reduce redundancy and the potential for error in
adjudication processes. For applicants, electronic processing will
improve the experience of applying for immigration benefits at each
stage of the process.
Summary of Legal Basis: 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 the Immigration
and Nationality Act (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 the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA), Public Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 Stat. 2681,
2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504, which provides that, when practicable,
federal agencies use electronic forms, electronic filing, and
electronic submissions to conduct agency business with the public.
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 mandating electronic submission for
all immigration benefit requests and making changes to existing
regulations to allow end-to-end digital processing, stakeholders will
incur some costs associated with transitioning current practices to an
electronic process. DHS anticipates there will be benefits and cost
savings associated with mandating electronic submission for all
immigration benefit requests and end-to-end digital processing.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Michael Mayhew, Chief of Staff, Immigration Records
and Identity Services Directorate, Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC20
DHS--USCIS
69. Updating Adjustment of Status Procedures for More
Efficient Processing and Immigrant Visa Usage
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. 1153 to 1155; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C.
1324a
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.5; 8 CFR 245.2; 8 CFR 245.18; 8 CFR 245.1;
8 CFR 274a.12; 8 CFR 205.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose
regulatory provisions designed to: Improve the efficiency in the
processing of Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
Status (Form I-485), reduce processing times, improve the quality of
inventory data provided to partner agencies, reduce the potential for
visa retrogression, promote efficient usage of available immigrant
visas, and discourage fraudulent or frivolous filings. DHS proposes to
eliminate the concurrent filing of visa petitions and Form I-485 for
all applicants seeking an immigrant visa in a preference category, and
proposes to make further changes to the appropriate dates when
applicants can file Form I-485 and for ancillary benefits.
Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to reduce Form
I-485 processing times, discourage frivolous filings, ensure that
ancillary benefits are connected to the potential for visa allocation,
provide steady Form I-485 receipts throughout the fiscal year, and
improve the quality of USCIS Form I-485 inventory data. Reduced
processing times, steady receipts, and better data quality will ensure
more efficient usage of the available immigrant visas and reduce visa
retrogression.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
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-AC22
DHS--USCIS
70. Improvements to the Medical Certification for Disability
Exceptions Processing
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. 1423; 8 U.S.C. 1443; 8
U.S.C. 1448
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 312.3.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose
[[Page 57879]]
updates to regulatory provisions designed to improve the efficiency of
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service processing of Medical
Certification for Disability Exceptions (Form N-648) by improving
customer service and responding to concerns of possible fraud and
abuse.
Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to ensure
operational efficiency and integrity by addressing issues of potential
fraud and other irregularities in the N-648 process.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
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-AC23
DHS--USCIS
71. Credible Fear Reform
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. 1158(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1224(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8
U.S.C. 1224(b)(1)(B)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208.2(b); 8 CFR 208.2(c); 8 CFR 208.30(e)(2); 8
CFR 208.30(e)(4); 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5); 8 CFR 208.30(f); 8 CFR 208.30(g);
8 CFR 235.6(a).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to
amend regulatory provisions to streamline credible fear screening
determinations, in response to the Southwest Border crisis. DHS plans
to establish various measures, such as applying the mandatory bars to
asylum eligibility to certain credible fear screening determinations,
and removing provisions related to novel or unique issues that merit
consideration in a full hearing before an immigration judge.
Statement of Need: The reforms that will be proposed by DHS aim to
respond to the national emergency caused by the influx of inadmissible
aliens along the Southwest Border and reduce the threat to U.S.
national security and public safety. Additionally, these provisions
will make the adjudication of credible fear claims more efficient while
upholding U.S. treaty obligations and law that prevent the return of
aliens to a country in which they would be persecuted or tortured. In
combination with other policy, operational, and legal reforms, the
proposed changes will reduce the strain on DHS resources by deterring
illegal migration to the United States, thereby addressing the
Southwest Border crisis and protecting U.S. national security and
public safety.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
section 235(b), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), defines the term credible fear of
persecution as a significant possibility, taking into the account the
credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the
alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that
the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 8 U.S.C.
1158. Currently, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services flags any
potential bars for the consideration of the immigration judge making a
final determination on asylum eligibility. Since eligibility for asylum
includes an applicability of any bars at 208(b)(2) or 241(b)(3) of the
INA, DHS proposes modifications to the regulation to enable USCIS
itself to apply the bars when making a credible fear of persecution
determination.
Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue
under the current process without change.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the exact
cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In general, DHS
anticipates that there may be some impacts to the adjudication of some
credible fear applications.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: John L. Lafferty, Chief, Asylum Division,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2090, Phone:
202 272-8377, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC24
DHS--USCIS
72. Employment Authorization Documents for Asylum Applicants
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. 1158(d)(2)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208.7; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to
propose regulatory amendments intended to promote greater
accountability in the application process for requesting employment
authorization and to deter the fraudulent filing of asylum applications
for the purpose of obtaining Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
Statement of Need: This rule aims to make changes that strengthen
eligibility and application requirements for asylum applicants who seek
employment eligibility in the United States.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act section
208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), provides the Attorney General with
authority to provide employment authorization to applicants for asylum
by establishing regulations. The statute also states such applicants
may not be granted asylum application-based employment authorization
prior to 180 days after filing of the application for asylum. DHS has
created regulations codifying employment authorization application
procedures and eligibility, as well as renewal procedures, and is
proposing modifications.
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the
qualitative and quantitative impacts of the proposed provisions.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
[[Page 57880]]
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Brandon B. Prelogar, Chief, International and
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202
272-8377, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC27
DHS--USCIS
Final Rule Stage
73. 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
deemed necessary to carry out her 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 107-296.
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 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 raise in the investment amounts and reform of 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 Rule.......................... 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Edie Pearson, Chief of Policy, Immigrant Investor
Program Office, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20529-2200,
Phone: 202 272-8377.
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB69.
RIN: 1615-AC07
DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)
Proposed Rule Stage
74. Removal of Certain International Convention on Standards
of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as
Amended (STCW) Training Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 7101(c)
CFR Citation: 46 CFR 11.317(a)(3)(iv); 46 CFR 11.321(a)(3)(iv); 46
CFR 12.611(a)(4)(i).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes to remove three Coast Guard
merchant mariner training requirements related to STCW officer and
rating endorsements from its regulations in 46 CFR parts 11 and 12. The
Coast Guard has determined these training requirements exceed current
international certification and training standards of the STCW and
cause a misalignment between the training of U.S. mariners and the
mariners of other countries. These training requirements are not
necessary for the safety of life and property at sea. The rule would
remove: Leadership and managerial skills training to qualify as master
of vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to near-coastal waters;
bridge resource management training to qualify as officer in charge of
a navigational watch on vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to
near-coastal waters; and computer systems and maintenance training to
qualify as electro-technical rating on vessels powered by main
propulsion machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP or more.
[[Page 57881]]
Statement of Need: The Coast Guard determined the three training
requirements exceed current international certification and training
standards of the STCW and cause a misalignment between the training of
U.S. mariners and the mariners of other countries. These training
requirements are not necessary for the safety of life and property at
sea.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The total 10-year discounted cost
savings of this proposed rule would be $20,321,360, discounted at 7
percent and 3 percent, respectively. The annualized total cost savings
would be $2,032,136, discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent,
respectively. Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate total
annualized discounted cost savings of the rule would be approximately
$1,658,828 in 2016 dollars, discounted at 7 percent.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Cathleen Mauro, Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20593-7509, Phone: 202 372-1449, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1625-AC48
DHS--USCG
Final Rule Stage
75. TWIC Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70105
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 105.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would partially delay the effective
date for the final rule entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements,'' published in the Federal
Register on August 23, 2016. Currently, the final rule is scheduled to
be implemented after the Department of Homeland Security submits the
report to Congress on the effectiveness of the TWIC program, required
by the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Security Card
Program Improvements and Assessment Act (Pub. L. 114-278). This
proposed rule would further delay the effective date for certain
facilities that handle certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs) in bulk or
receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk.
Statement of Need: After the publication of the Final Rule, the
Coast Guard received inquiries from owners of facilities and vessels
concerning the rule's requirements regarding the facilities affected by
the final rule and several questions related to how the final rule
addressed Certain Dangerous Cargoes. This proposed rule would provide
the Coast Guard time to update its security-related databases and
consider policy options relating to implementation of TWIC readers
while addressing the inquiries.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM estimated annualized cost
savings to both industry and government as $1.15 million, using a seven
percent discount rate and a 10-year period of analysis. Using a
perpetual period of analysis, we estimated total annualized discounted
cost savings of the rule would be approximately $0.552 million in 2016
dollars, discounted at 7 percent. The benefits for partially delaying
the effective date of the final rule for an additional 3 years are that
it would allow the Coast Guard time to conduct additional analysis of
the potential effects of the rule.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/22/18 83 FR 29067
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/23/18
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: LCDR Yamaris Barril, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20593, Phone: 202 372-1151, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1625-AC47
DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)
Final Rule Stage
76. Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens 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
biometrics 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 enable CBP to make the process for
verifying the identity of aliens more efficient, accurate, and secure
by using facial recognition technology, DHS is amending the regulations
to provide that all aliens may be required to be photographed upon
entry and/or departure.
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
[[Page 57882]]
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.................. 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Michael Hardin, Director, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. 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
77. 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 travelers
required to complete an ESTA application.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kenneth Sava, Trusted Traveler Programs, Department
of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of
Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229,
Phone: 202 344-2589, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AB14
DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
78. 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................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
[[Page 57883]]
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, 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, 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, Chief Counsel's Office, 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
79. 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 1542.209; 49 CFR 1544.229.
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 section 3405 of title III of the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Extension Act), 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 FAA Extension Act, 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................................ 08/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Jason Hull, Aviation Program Manager, Department of
Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Intelligence
and Analysis, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone:
571 227-1175, Email: [email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839,
Email: [email protected].
Christine Beyer, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3653, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA11
RIN: 1652-AA70
DHS--TSA
Final Rule Stage
80. Protection of Sensitive Security Information
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 40119; 49 U.S.C. 44905;
49 U.S.C. 46105
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 15; 49 CFR 1520.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In 2004, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
and Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) published an
interim final rule (IFR) governing the protection of sensitive security
information (SSI). See 49 CFR parts 15 (OST) and 1520 (TSA). Since that
time, requirements for the protection of SSI have been modified by a
subsequent IFR (2005) and regulations promulgated by the Department of
Transportation (DOT), TSA, and Department of Homeland Security. These
modifications have resulted in inconsistencies between TSA and OST
regulations. TSA and OST are issuing a final rule that will harmonize
the regulations and reduce regulatory burden through streamlining
certain requirements and eliminating others.
Statement of Need: TSA's SSI regulations were promulgated to meet a
statutory requirement to protect information obtained or developed to
meet TSA's security requirements. See 49 U.S.C. 114(r). DOT has a
corresponding requirement under 49 U.S.C. 40119(b). Due to amendments
made since the joint IFR was published in 2004, regulated parties must
often consult multiple regulatory provisions to determine their
responsibilities. Harmonizing these regulations and creating
consistency between them will ease the burden of compliance and ensure
consistent application of the SSI regulations by TSA and DOT. Further,
TSA, in consultation with OST, is considering aligning the SSI
requirements related to the names of persons identified as current,
past, or applicants to be Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs) with the
handling of Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). The modification to TSA's SSI
regulations would protect lists of FFDO names, rather than a single
FFDO name, and reduce the overall number of documents that are labeled
SSI.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The final rule does not impose any
new requirements. In addition to clarifying and harmonizing
requirements, the rule
[[Page 57884]]
reduces regulatory burden by providing options for the SSI distribution
statement. In addition, should TSA modify the regulations to handle
FFDO names consistent with FAM names, it would result in a time savings
and corresponding reduction in regulatory burden: Eliminating time that
would otherwise be spent marking these documents SSI (industry) and
reviewing these documents to ensure they are appropriately marked
(TSA).
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule; Request for 05/18/04 69 FR 28066
Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 06/17/04 .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period 07/19/04 .......................
End.
Final Rule; Technical Amendment..... 01/07/05 70 FR 1379
Final Rule; Technical Amdt Effective 01/07/05 .......................
Notice-Information Collection; 11/01/06 71 FR 64288
Emergency Approval.
Notice-Information Collection; 60- 02/04/07 72 FR 7059
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30- 06/18/07 72 FR 33511
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60- 08/03/10 75 FR 44974
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30- 10/15/10 75 FR 63499
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60- 08/16/13 78 FR 50076
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30- 01/15/14 79 FR 2679
Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60- 11/25/16 81 FR 85243
Day Revision.
Notice-Information Collection; 30- 06/16/17 82 FR 27852
Day Revision.
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: Joint rulemaking with Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary (RIN No. 2105-AD59) Transferred
from RIN 2110-AA10.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Holly Dickens, Senior Policy Analyst, Sensitive
Security Information (SSI) Program, Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration, Security Services &
Assessments, LE/FAMS, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6018,
Phone: 571 227-3723, Email: [email protected].
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, 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, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-1088, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA05, Related to 1652-AA49
RIN: 1652-AA08
DHS--TSA
81. 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 section 612(a) of
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176,
117 Stat. 2490, Dec. 12, 2003), 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. One
action TSA is considering is 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.
[[Page 57885]]
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.
IFR; Comment Period Reopened........ 05/18/18 83 FR 23238
IFR; Comment Period Reopened End.... 06/18/18 .......................
Notice-Information Collection; 60- 07/06/18 83 FR 31561
Day Renewal.
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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, 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, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2465, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA61
RIN: 1652-AA35
DHS--TSA
82. 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 6 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 6 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 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007).
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 annualized 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
[[Page 57886]]
this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this
transportation sector.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice; Request for Comment......... 06/14/13 78 FR 35945
Notice; Comment Period End.......... 07/15/13 .......................
NPRM................................ 12/16/16 81 FR 91336
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/16/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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, 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, Chief Counsel's Office, 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
83. Apprehension, Processing, Care and Custody of Alien Minors and
Unaccompanied Alien Children
Priority: Other Significant.
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: 8 CFR 236; 8 CFR 208.
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 45 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 rule would codify the relevant and 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, HHS, and
DOJ 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 5 years after the date of final court approval; however,
the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that the FSA
does not terminate until 45 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 rule will codify the relevant and
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, HHS, and DOJ 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: Prior to proposing this rule, DHS considered the
alternative to publishing this rule, which was not to promulgate
regulations. This has required the Government to adhere to the terms of
the FSA, as interpreted by the courts, which also rejected the
Government's efforts to amend the FSA to help it better conform to
existing legal and operational realities.
The primary source of new costs for the proposed rule would be a
result of the proposed alternative licensing process, which ICE expects
to extend detention of some minors and their accompanying parent or
legal guardian in FRCs. This may increase variable annual FRC costs
paid by ICE. The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to
ensure that applicable regulations reflect the Departments' current
operations with respect to minors and UACs in accordance with the
relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and the TVPRA. Further, by
departing from the FSA in limited cases to reflect the intervening
statutory and operational changes, ICE will ensure that it retains
discretion to detain families, as appropriate, to meet its enforcement
needs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary source of new costs for
the proposed rule would be a result of the proposed alternative
licensing process which ICE expects to extend detention of some minors
and their accompanying parent or legal guardian in Family Residential
Centers (FRCs). This may increase variable annual FRC costs paid by
ICE. The primary benefit of the rule would be to ensure that applicable
regulations reflect the Department's current operations with respect to
minors and Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) in accordance with the
relevant and substantive terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA)
and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
Further, by departing from the FSA in limited cases to reflect the
intervening statutory and operational changes, ICE will ensure that it
retains discretion to detain families, as appropriate, to meet its
enforcement needs.
Risks:
Timetable:
[[Page 57887]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/07/18 83 FR 45486
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/06/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mark Lawyer, Chief, Regulations, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th
Street SW, Mail Stop 5006, Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5683,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 0970-AC42.
RIN: 1653-AA75
DHS--USICE
84. Establishing a Maximum Period of Authorized Stay for F-1
and Other Nonimmigrants
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8
U.S.C. 1184
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will
propose to modify the period of authorized stay for certain categories
of nonimmigrants traveling to the United States from ``duration of
status'' (D/S) and to replace such with a maximum period of authorized
stay, and options for extensions, for each applicable visa category.
Statement of Need: The failure to provide certain categories of
nonimmigrants with specific dates for their authorized periods of stay
can cause confusion over how long they may lawfully remain in the
United States and has complicated the efforts to reduce overstay rates
for nonimmigrant students. The clarity created by date-certain
admissions will help reduce the overstay rate.
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, and the employers
of nonimmigrant students who participate in practical training would
incur costs for increased requirements. This rule is intended to
decrease the incidence of nonimmigrant student overstays and improve
the integrity of the nonimmigrant student visa.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mark Lawyer, Chief, Regulations, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th
Street SW, Mail Stop 5006, Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5683,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA78
DHS--USICE
Final Rule Stage
85. Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Priority: Other Significant.
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 to 903; 31 U.S.C. 902
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: ICE will publish a final rule to adjust fees that the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) charges individuals and
organizations. In 2017, 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. The final rule
will adjust fees for individuals and organizations. 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 publish a final rule to adjust its fees for individuals and
organizations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To recover the full cost of its
budget for the services it provides, SEVP has proposed 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 SEVP 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................................ 07/17/18 83 FR 33762
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/17/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: 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--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Final Rule Stage
86. 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, sec. 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
[[Page 57888]]
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 (IA)
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.......................... 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
DHS--FEMA
87. Update to FEMA's Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553
CFR Citation: 44 CFR 1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposed
to revise its regulations pertaining to rulemaking. It removes sections
that are outdated or do not affect the public, and it updates
provisions that affect the public's participation in the rulemaking
process, such as the submission of public comments, hearings, ex parte
communications, the public rulemaking docket, and petitions for
rulemaking. FEMA also modifies its waiver of the Administrative
Procedure Act exemption for matters relating to public property, loans,
grants, benefits, and contracts.
Statement of Need: This final rule removes sections of FEMA's
rulemaking provisions that are outdated or that do not affect the
public, and updates provisions that affect the public's participation
in the rulemaking process.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives:
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule does not impose additional
direct costs on the public or government.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/07/17 82 FR 26411
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/07/17
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2017-0016.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Liza Davis, Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory
Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20472, Phone: 202
646-4046, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1660-AA91
BILLING CODE: 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2019
Introduction
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 highlights the most
significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to
complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal
[[Page 57889]]
agency that serves as the nation's housing agency, HUD is committed to
addressing the housing needs of all Americans by creating strong,
sustainable, inclusive communities, and quality affordable homes. As a
result, HUD plays a significant role in the lives of families and in
communities throughout America.
HUD is currently working to develop an innovative approach that
anticipates the housing needs of the future while addressing current
needs. HUD's 2018-2022 strategic plan focuses on rethinking American
communities by refocusing on HUD's core mission and modernizing HUD's
approach, leveraging private-sector partnerships, supporting
sustainable homeownership, encouraging affordable housing investments,
and redesigning HUD's internal processes. HUD's regulatory plan for
FY2019 reflects Secretary Carson's strategic plan and HUD's mission.
In addition to the highlighted rule in this plan, Secretary Carson
directed HUD, consistent with Executive Order 13771, entitled
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' to identify
and eliminate or streamline regulations that are wasteful, inefficient
or unnecessary. The Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of
Executive Order 13777, entitled ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.'' 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, or
modification; are outdated, unnecessary, or 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. As a result of Secretary's Carson's direction, HUD's Fall
2019 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions lists two
anticipated regulatory actions and twelve deregulatory actions.
The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY2019 reflects
HUD's efforts to develop innovative approaches that anticipate the
housing needs of the future, including the removal or revision of
regulations that HUD has determined are outdated, unnecessary, or
ineffective.
Streamlining the ``Section 3'' Requirements for Creating Economic
Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons and Eligible
Businesses: Deregulation
The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment, training,
contracting, and other economic opportunities generated by certain HUD
financial assistance are directed to low- and very low-income persons,
particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for
housing, and to businesses that provide economic opportunities to low-
and very low-income persons. HUD's current regulations for Section 3
have not been updated in over 20 years. HUD's experience in
administering Section 3 over time has provided insight as to how HUD
could improve the effectiveness of its Section 3 regulations.
Additionally, HUD has heard from the public that there is a need for
regulatory changes to clarify and simplify the existing requirements.
HUD concluded that regulatory changes are needed to streamline Section
3 and more effectively help recipients of HUD funds achieve the
purposes of the Section 3 statute. HUD's proposed rule would update the
regulations implementing Section 3 by aligning the reporting with
standard business practice; amending the applicability section;
updating reporting and adding new outcome benchmarks; and integrating
Section 3 into program enforcement.
The new rule generally proposes the tracking and reporting of labor
hours, rather than new hires. HUD believes that this is more consistent
with the business practices of most HUD recipients, which already track
labor hours in their payroll systems because they are subject to
prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, or HUD
prevailing wage requirements. A labor-hours frame-work focuses on the
outcome that Section 3 requirements are intended to promote, i.e.,
increasing the amount of paid employment and work experience for low-
income persons. Tracking labor hours creates incentives for employers
to retain and invest in their low-income workers by removing the
opportunity for employers to manipulate HUD's current regulations by
hiring the same employee for several short, temporary jobs over the
course of a reporting period.
This proposed rule would maintain the statutory scope of
applicability while providing separate subparts relating to the
different types of funding sources that have associated Section 3
requirements: (1) Public housing financial assistance, which covers
development assistance provided pursuant to section 5 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and operating and capital fund
assistance provided pursuant to section 9 of the 1937 Act; and (2)
Section 3 projects, which covers (a) housing rehabilitation, housing
construction and other public construction projects funded with HUD
program assistance, when such cumulative assistance to a jurisdiction
exceeds a $200,000 threshold; and (b) housing rehabilitation or
construction projects that include multiple funding sources, one or
more of which is associated with Section 3 requirements. HUD would also
update the $200,000 cumulative assistance threshold for Section 3
projects applicability to encompass a narrower scope. HUD believes that
this change would reduce the burden on smaller projects.
In addition, HUD's proposed rule would change the process for
meeting a safe harbor for compliance with the Section 3 requirements
and reporting of Section 3 data. HUD's current regulations provide for
a safe harbor where recipients demonstrate compliance with Section 3 by
meeting numerical goals for the percentage of their new hires that
qualify as Section 3 residents. In addition to hiring Section 3 workers
generally, the Section 3 statute directs for recipients of Section 3
covered assistance to target their efforts to provide employment and
economic opportunities to specific groups of low-income individuals.
HUD's proposed rule would create two ``Targeted Section 3 Worker''
definitions that would track, according to the type of funding source,
the numbers of Section 3 workers who are (a) reported by Section 3
business concerns, or (b) represent the priority categories included in
the statute and selected by HUD, i.e., housing project residents. The
proposed new rule would also require that recipients report the labor
hours performed by Section 3 Workers as a percentage of the total labor
hours, and labor hours performed by Targeted Section 3 Workers as a
percentage of the total labor hours.
Using the new reporting metrics, HUD would set benchmarks for the
safe harbor through Federal Register notice, so HUD can update the
metrics in response to additional data. It would also ensure that
recipients hire workers from the priority groups, consistent with the
statute. As HUD gathers data under the new rule, HUD can more easily
revise benchmark figures or tailor different benchmarks for different
geographies and different funding types. If a recipient is complying
with the statutory priorities and meeting the
[[Page 57890]]
outcome benchmarks, HUD would presume they are exerting the statutorily
prescribed level of effort. Otherwise, the recipients would be required
to submit qualitative reports on their efforts, as they are required to
do under the current rule when they do not meet the safe harbor, and
HUD may do more in-depth compliance reviews. PHAs with fewer than 250
units would only be required to report on Section 3 qualitative efforts
and would not be required to report on whether they have met the
reporting benchmarks.
Lastly, HUD's proposal would provide that program staff would
incorporate Section 3 compliance and oversight into regular program
oversight and make Section 3 a more integral part of the program
office's work. As a result, this proposed rule would streamline the
extensive complaint and compliance review procedures in the current
rule. Relatedly, it would remove the delegation of authority in the
current regulations, as Section 3 requirements, reporting, and
compliance activities would be aligned with those of the applicable HUD
program office or offices.
HUD envisions this rule being completed in FY 2019.
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 2019. HUD expects that the neither the total economic
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
Project Approval for Single-Family Condominiums
This rule would codify HUD's program to approve condominium
projects for FHA insurance pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1707(a), as amended by
section 2117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
which defines a mortgage eligible for FHA insurance as a first lien on
a one-family unit along with an undivided interest in the common areas
and facilities which serve the project. This codification would make
current requirements for the program less strict and prescriptive,
giving the condominium industry greater flexibility.
The FHA Condominium program is currently administered under the
Condominium Approval and Processing Guide (the Guide). The Guide has a
number of ``bright line'' requirements. This final rule would, on the
other hand, establish more flexible and less costly requirements. The
rule retains those requirements that are necessary to fulfill HUD's
duty to avoid excessive risk to the insurance fund but does so in a
less prescriptive way. This should result in increasing FHA
participation in the condominium market and make condominiums more
widely available. Condominium units are a valuable source of
homeownership for moderate and lower-income families.
To provide for flexibility the rule would remove strict numeric
requirements in favor of provisions that permit HUD to act within
ranges. Specifically, where the Guide currently has strict numerical
requirements regarding the allowable percentage of FHA-insured
projects, the percentage of owner occupants, and the amount of space
that can be used for commercial or nonresidential purposes, the final
rule would make these percentages flexible and efficient to change, so
that HUD can adjust to changing market conditions. HUD anticipates
providing for the ability to change these threshold percentages by
notice, rather than regulation, the rule would allow HUD to quickly
adjust these percentages to be responsive to the market. There is also
a provision for HUD to grant exceptions to these percentages on a case-
by-case basis, considering factors relating to the economy for the
locality in which the project is located or specific to the project.
The percentage range limits themselves may be changed by publishing a
notice for a brief period of public comment.
The final rule would also allow for single units to be approved for
mortgage insurance outside of the project approval process. Unlike the
Guide that does not provide a provision for insuring mortgages on units
other than in an approved project, this rule recognizes that there may
be situations where a project may not be approved, not because of any
significant inherent problem with the project that creates risk to the
insurance fund (e.g., the Homeowners' Association does not want to go
to the expense of applying for approval). In such cases, the rule would
allow for a percentage of single units to be approved for mortgage
insurance outside of the project approval process, under certain
guidelines designed to reduce unacceptable risk to the insurance fund.
The rule would institute front-end standards for mortgagees to
qualify to participate as Direct Endorsement lenders in the DELRAP, or
Direct Endorsement Review and Approval Program. Once qualified, these
lenders have the ability to review and approve condominium loans, with
HUD having the authority to intervene in the case of misconduct or
unacceptable performance. Ensuring that Direct Endorsement mortgagees
have staff members with relevant condominium experience helps to
mitigate risks to the insurance fund.
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.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and Enhancements
On July 16, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register its
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule. The goal of
the regulation was to provide HUD program participants with a revised
planning approach to assist them in meeting their statutory obligation
to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing
Act. The principal AFFH regulations are codified in 24 CFR part 5,
subpart A, with other AFFH related regulations codified in 24 CFR parts
91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903. HUD is committed to its mission of
achieving fair housing opportunity for all, regardless of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status.
However, HUD's experience over the three years since the newly-
specified approach was promulgated demonstrates that the rule is not
fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding meaningful
action by program participants.
Under the AFFH rule, HUD program participants are required to use
an Assessment Tool to conduct and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing
(AFH) to HUD. Because of the variations in the HUD program participants
subject to the AFFH rule, HUD went through a process to develop three
separate assessment tools: one for local governments, one for public
housing agencies, and one for States and Insular Areas. Due to varying
technical and other issues, only the Assessment Tool for local
governments was ever made available for use. However, HUD withdrew the
Local Government Assessment Tool in a Federal Register notice published
on May 23, 2018 as a result of its review of the initial round of AFH
submissions that were developed using the tool. This review led HUD to
conclude that the tool was unworkable based upon: (1) The high failure
rate from the initial
[[Page 57891]]
round of submissions; and (2) the level of technical assistance HUD
provided to this initial round of 49 AFHs, which cannot be scaled up to
accommodate the increase in the number of local government program
participants with AFH submission deadlines in 2018 and 2019.
On May 15, 2017, HUD published a Federal Register notice consistent
with Executive Orders 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' and 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda,'' inviting public comments to assist HUD in identifying
existing regulations that may be outdated, ineffective, or excessively
burdensome. HUD received 299 comments in response to the Notice, and
136 (45% of the total) discussed the AFFH rule. Most of these comments
were critical of the AFFH rule and cited its complexity and the costs
associated with completing an AFH.
As HUD begins the process of developing a new proposed rule, HUD
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on August 16,
2018, at 83 FR 40713, which invites public comment on amendments to the
AFFH regulations. HUD is also reviewing comments submitted in response
to the withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool and will
consider those comments during HUD's consideration of potential changes
to the AFFH regulations. HUD will use these sets of comments in
drafting future rulemaking.
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. At this pre-rule stage, HUD expects that the
neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will
exceed $100 million.
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)
Proposed Rule Stage
88. Enhancing and Streamlining the Implementation of ``Section 3''
Requirements for Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-
Income Persons and Eligible Businesses
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 3301;
42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 14, 75, 91, 92, 93, 135, 266,; 570, 576,
578, 905, 964, 983, and 1000.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule revises HUD's regulations for Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended by the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 (Section 3), which ensures that
employment, training, and contracting opportunities generated by
certain HUD financial assistance shall, to the greatest extent
feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations, be directed to low- and very low-income persons,
particularly those who are recipients of Government assistance for
housing and to business concerns that provide economic opportunities to
these persons. HUD's regulations implementing the requirements of
Section 3 have not been updated since 1994 and are not as effective at
promoting economic opportunity for low-income persons as HUD believes
they could be. This proposed rule would update HUD's Section 3
regulations to streamline reporting requirements by aligning the
reporting with standard business practice; amending the applicability
section; updating reporting and adding new outcome benchmarks; and
integrating Section 3 into program enforcement. The purpose of these
changes is to reduce regulatory burden, increase compliance with
Section 3 requirements, and increase Section 3 opportunities for low-
income persons.
Statement of Need: Over 24 years ago, HUD's Section 3 regulations
were promulgated through an interim rule published on June 30, 1994, at
59 FR 33880. Since HUD promulgated the current set of Section 3
regulations, significant legislation has been enacted that affects HUD
programs that are subject to the requirements of Section 3. HUD has
also heard from the public that there is a need for regulatory changes
to clarify and simplify the existing requirements. HUD concluded that
regulatory changes are needed to streamline Section 3 and more
effectively help recipients of HUD funds achieve the purposes of the
Section 3 statute.
Summary of Legal Basis: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C.
3301; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The purpose of Section 3 is to
provide jobs, including apprenticeship opportunities, to public housing
residents and other specific low- and very low-income residents of a
local area, and contracting opportunities for businesses that
substantially employ these persons. However, the Section 3 requirement
itself does not create additional jobs or contracts. Instead, Section 3
redirects local jobs and contracts created as a result of the
expenditure of HUD funds to Section 3 residents and businesses residing
and operating in the area in which the HUD funds are expended.
Currently, Section 3 rules require that a certain percent of new hires
are Section 3 residents. HUD has determined that this measure has led
to churning, where employers create a series of short-term jobs and
hire and fire an employee in order to meet their Section 3 numeric
goals. The proposed rule will curb these practices by changing the
metric to a percentage of hours worked. HUD anticipates that the change
will incentivize employers to create long-term employment opportunities
as employers shift their focus to reporting hours worked, a factor that
aligns with business practices, rather than on providing employment for
a specific number of new hires. HUD also anticipates that the rule's
streamlined reporting requirements will contribute to an increase in
the number of employment opportunities provided to Section 3 residents
and more funds for Section 3 businesses. HUD estimates that proposed
rule would result in an estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden
reduction of 25,910 hours or $1.2 million a year. These figures are
preliminary estimates and may be updated pending OMB review.
Initial compliance costs are expected to be minimal and one-time as
recipients shift their practices to meet the new requirements. For
example, some recipients may have difficulty determining whether
employees live in a Qualified Census Tract, or whether they live within
a certain distance of a worksite. However, HUD plans to create tools to
assist recipients in making these determinations. HUD will pay
attention to public comment on this issue to ensure that compliance
costs are indeed reduced by this rule change.
Benefits to low-income and very low-income persons are difficult to
quantify. As described below, the change from measuring new hires to
measuring labor hours could not only reduce churn but, depending on the
initial benchmarks established, could also result in employers not
needing to add new Section 3 workers in the short-term. However,
tracking the amount of work performed by Targeted Section 3 workers
would help ensure that the priorities of Section 3 are being
considered, consistent with the statutory requirement, when recipients
hire and distribute hours to low-income
[[Page 57892]]
workers. As HUD tracks the new data reported by recipients, HUD expects
to move the benchmarks to ensure that recipients are driven to increase
their Section 3 opportunities, consistent with the Section 3 statutory
intent that Federal financial assistance is, to the greatest extent
feasible, directed toward low- and very low-income persons,
particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for
housing. The goal is that those recipients of government assistance for
housing will find Section 3 employment and a path to financial security
that removes the need for long-term government assistance.
The initial benefit of this rule is the reduction in administrative
costs to both HUD and recipients of HUD financing, which results from
aligning the Section 3 requirements with what businesses already track.
HUD believes this change would improve compliance by recipients.
Risks: A potential risk in switching from reporting and tracking
new hires to labor hours is that the number of Section 3 workers being
hired might decrease or remain flat. However, this would be because
employers have a financial incentive to retain current Section 3
workers rather than hire new Section 3 workers under this rule. This
would be due, in part, to employers losing the existing incentive to
churn workers in order to count new hires. Additionally, if data shows
that this rule is not increasing employment opportunities for Section 3
workers over time, HUD can adjust the new Section 3 benchmarks to
increase the number of labor hours performed by Section 3 workers that
employers would need to meet in order to demonstrate compliance with
this requirement.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director, Office of
Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-4673.
Thomas R. Davis, Director, Office of Recapitalization, Office of
Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the
Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
0001.
Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs,
Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-2684.
RIN: 2501-AD87
HUD--OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH)
Final Rule Stage
89. Project Approval for Single Family Condominium (FR-5715)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707, 1709 and 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: This final rule implements HUD's authority under the
single-family mortgage insurance provisions of the National Housing Act
to insure one-family units in a multifamily project, including a
project in which the dwelling units are attached, or are manufactured
housing units, semi-detached, or detached, and an undivided interest in
the common areas and facilities which serve the project. The rule
provides for requirements for lenders to obtain approval under the
Direct Endorsement Lender Review and Approval Process (DELRAP)
authority for condominiums, and for standards that projects must meet
to be approved for mortgage insurance on individual units. The rule
provides for flexibility with respect to the concentration of FHA-
insured units, owner-occupied units, and the amount that can be set
aside for commercial and non-residential space. This will enable HUD to
vary these standards, within parameters, to meet market needs.
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 (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, and flexible
standards, 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:
[[Page 57893]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/28/16 81 FR 66565
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/28/16 .......................
Final Action........................ 01/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SW, Washington, DC
20410, Phone: 202 708-2121.
RIN: 2502-AJ30
HUD--OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (FHEO)
Prerule Stage
90. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Streamlining and
Enhancement (FR-6123)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 3601 to 3619
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites public
comment on amendments to HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing
(AFFH) regulations. The goal of the regulations is to provide HUD
program participants with a specific planning approach to assist them
in meeting their statutory obligation to affirmatively further the
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. HUD is committed to its
mission of achieving fair housing opportunity for all, regardless of
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial
status. fair housing. However, HUD's experience over the three years
since the newly-specified approach was promulgated demonstrates that it
is not fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding
meaningful action by program participants. As HUD begins the process of
developing a proposed rule to amend the existing AFFH regulations, it
is soliciting public comment on changes that will: (1) Minimize
regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to
plan for fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further the
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act; (2) create a process
that is focused primarily on accomplishing positive results, rather
than on performing analysis of community characteristics; (3) provide
for greater local control and innovation; (4) seek to encourage actions
that increase housing choice, including through greater housing supply;
and (5) more efficiently utilize HUD resources. HUD is also reviewing
comments submitted in response to the withdrawal of the Local
Government Assessment Tool and will consider those comments during
HUD's consideration of potential changes to the AFFH regulations.
Statement of Need: The stated purpose of the AFFH regulations is to
provide HUD program participants with a planning approach to assist
them in meeting their legal obligation to affirmatively further the
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. However, HUD has
concluded that the current regulations are ineffective. The highly
prescriptive regulations give participants inadequate autonomy in
developing fair housing goals as suggested by principles of federalism.
Additionally, the current regulations do not address the lack of
adequate housing supply, which has a particular adverse impact on
protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. Finally, some peer-
reviewed literature indicates that outcomes of policies focused on
deconcentrating poverty may vary across different ages and demographic
groups, and suggests that such policies are difficult to implement at
scale and without disrupting local decision making.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: At this pre-rule stage, HUD expects
that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency
gains will exceed $100 million.
Risks: Program participants are reminded that the legal obligation
to affirmatively further fair housing remains in effect. The withdrawal
of the Local Government Assessment Tool means that a program
participant that has not yet submitted an AFH using that device that
has been accepted by HUD must continue to carry out its duty to
affirmatively further fair housing by, inter alia, continuing to assess
fair housing issues as part of planning for use of housing and
community development block grants in accordance with pre-existing
requirements. The pre-existing requirements referred to the fair
housing assessment as an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice
(AI). HUD places a high priority upon the responsibility of program
participants to ensure that their AIs serve as effective fair housing
planning tools.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 08/16/18 83 FR 40713
Comment Period End.................. 10/15/18 .......................
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Krista Mills, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Policy, Legislative Initiatives, and Outreach, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,
451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-6577.
RIN: 2529-AA97
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Regulatory Plan Fall 2018
Introduction
The U.S. Department of the Interior (``Interior'' or ``the
Department'') serves the American public by managing the Nation's
natural resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people,
and it honors the United States' trust responsibilities or special
commitments to Federally recognized tribes, American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and affiliated insular areas. This includes managing
approximately 500 million surface acres of Federal land or about twenty
percent of the Nation's land area, approximately 700 million subsurface
acres of Federal mineral estate, and over a billion acres of submerged
lands on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Hundreds of millions of people visit Interior-managed lands each
year in order to engage in camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and
various other forms of outdoor recreation, which supports local
communities and their economies. Interior provides access to Federal
lands and offshore areas for the development of energy, minerals and
other natural resources, which generates revenue for all levels of
government, creates jobs and supports the Nation's energy and mineral
security by promoting the identification and development of domestic
sources of energy, minerals and the associated infrastructure needs.
Interior manages these resources under a legal framework that includes
[[Page 57894]]
regulations that ultimately affect the lives and livelihoods of many
Americans.
America's lands and natural resources hold tremendous job-creating
assets. As the steward for a substantial portion of this public trust,
Interior manages the Nation's lands and natural resources for multiple
uses. Through this balanced stewardship of public resources, which
recognizes the value of both conservation and development, Interior
helps drive job opportunities and economic growth. Interior supports
$254 billion in estimated economic benefit, while direct grants and
payments to states, tribes, and local communities provide an estimated
$10 billion in economic benefit. In 2017, Interior collected
approximately $9.6 billion from energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry
activities on behalf of the American people. Interior also supports the
economy by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulatory
requirements.
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 (E.O.) 13777,
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (signed Feb. 24, 2017), has
established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to help make Interior's
regulations work better for the American people. In accordance with
E.O. 13777, as well as E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (signed Jan. 30, 2017), Interior will
continue its efforts to identify and repeal, replace or modify
regulations that are unnecessary, ineffective or that impose costs,
which are not adequately justified by benefits. Interior will also
continue 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.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior's regulatory agenda will continue to
reflect a strong commitment to a conservation ethic that also
recognizes that unnecessary regulations create harmful economic
consequences on the U.S. economy. In doing this, the Department will
continue to protect human health and the environment in a responsible
and cost-effective manner, but in a way that avoids imposing undue
process or unnecessary economic burdens on the American public.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Interior's regulatory and deregulatory priorities focus on:
Promoting American energy and critical mineral development
Improving the effectiveness, transparency and timeliness of
environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure
projects
Expanding 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 and Critical Mineral Development
On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13783, ``Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' which states that ``[i]t 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.'' In accordance
with E.O. 13783, Interior strives to promote the responsible
development of Federal and Indian energy resources, while seeking to
identify and eliminate regulatory requirements that unnecessarily
burden the development or use of domestic sources of energy beyond the
degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply
with the law. In addition to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens,
Interior is committed to improving its management of Federal and Indian
energy resources by developing more efficient and streamlined
permitting and review procedures.
The Department also recognizes that the public lands under its
stewardship are an important source of the Nation's non-energy mineral
resources, some of which are critical and strategic, and it is
committed to ensuring appropriate access to public lands for the
orderly and efficient development of important mineral resources. On
December 20, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13817, ``A Federal
Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,''
which prioritizes the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign
sources for critical mineral supplies, which the U.S. relies upon to
manufacture everything from batteries and computer chips to the
equipment used by our military. Within this framework, on December 21,
2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order (S.O.) No. 3351,
``Critical Mineral Independence and Security,'' which directed Interior
bureaus to identify a list of critical minerals and streamline
permitting to encourage domestic production of those critical minerals.
In furtherance of these goals, Interior completed the following
regulatory actions during fiscal year 2018:
BLM published the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas:
Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands; Rescission of a 2015
Rule'' (82 FR 61924, Dec. 29, 2017);
BLM publish the final rule entitled, ``Waste Prevention,
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Rescission
or Revision of Certain Requirements'' (83 FR 49184, Sept. 28, 2018);
and
BSEE published the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and
Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Oil and Gas
Production Safety Systems'' (83 FR 49216, Sept. 28, 2018).
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory
agenda that seeks to eliminate or minimize regulatory burdens that
unnecessarily encumber energy and mineral development, and that
promotes efficient, effective and timely processing of energy and
mineral permits and other authorizations on Interior-administered lands
and waters. Some of the regulatory actions that Interior is planning to
prioritize in fiscal year 2019 include the following:
BSEE is considering a potential regulatory action to
revise the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf--Blowout Preventer Systems and Well
Control'' (81 FR 25887, Apr. 29, 2016);
BOEM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory
action related to its Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01, ``Notice to
Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulfur Leases, and
Holders of Pipeline Right-of-Way and Right-of-Use and Easement Grants
in the Outer Continental Shelf'' (Sep. 12, 2016);
BOEM is reconsidering the provisions of the proposed rule
entitled, ``Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,'' (81 FR
19718, Apr. 5, 2016);
BSEE and BOEM are reviewing and considering a potential
regulatory action related to the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and
Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf'' (81 FR
46478, Jul. 15, 2016); and
[[Page 57895]]
BLM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory
action related to the final rules entitled, ``Onshore Oil and Gas
Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Site Security'' (81
FR 81356, Nov. 17, 2016), ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and
Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of Oil'' (81 FR 81462, Nov. 17,
2016), and ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and
Gas Leases; Measurement of Gas'' (81 FR 81516, Nov. 17, 2016).
Improving the Efficiency, Transparency and Timeliness of Environmental
Review and Permitting Processes for Infrastructure Projects
As outlined in E.O. 13807, ``Establishing Discipline and
Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for
Infrastructure Projects'' (signed Aug. 15, 2017), inefficiencies in
permitting processes, including environmental review processes, can
delay or prevent infrastructure investments, increase project costs,
and prevent the American people from experiencing infrastructure
improvements that would benefit our economy, society and environment.
With this in mind, E.O. 13807 directs Federal agencies to undertake
actions in order to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency
and accountability of their environmental review and permitting
processes for infrastructure projects.
The Department is responsible for reviewing and approving permits
and other authorizations for various public and private infrastructure
projects on and across Interior-managed lands nationwide, including
various forms of surface transportation, such as roadways and
railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, water resource projects, and
energy production and generation. As such, Interior has an important
role in the overall objective of improving the Nation's infrastructure.
In recognition of the important role that it plays in the overall
efforts to improve and strengthen the Nation's infrastructure, Interior
has initiated actions in order to identify and address potential
impediments to its efficient and effective review of infrastructure
projects. For example, on August 31, 2017, Interior issued S.O. 3355,
``Streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and
Implementation of Executive Order 13807, `Establishing Discipline and
Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for
Infrastructure Projects,' '' in order to enhance, modernize and improve
the efficiencies of the Department's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review processes.
In order to ensure that the objectives of E.O. 13807 and S.O. 3355
are effectively implemented, the Department has issued numerous
guidance documents, including Environmental Review Memorandum No. ERM
10-11, ``Determining the Applicable Environmental Review Framework for
Infrastructure Projects'' (August 9, 2018), and the following memoranda
from the Deputy Secretary of the Interior:
``Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order
3355'' (April 27, 2018);
``NEPA Document Clearance Process'' (April 27, 2018);
``Compiling Contemporaneous Decision Files'' (April 27,
2018);
``Standardized Intra-Department Procedures Replacing
Individual Memoranda of Understanding for Bureaus Working as
Cooperating Agencies'' (June 11, 2018);
``Questions and Answers Related to Deputy Secretary
Memorandums (Memos) dated April 27, 2018'' (June 22, 2018);
``Reporting Costs Associated with Developing Environmental
Impact Statements'' (July 23, 2018); and
``Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order
3355 Regarding Environmental Assessments'' (August 6, 2018).
In addition, pursuant to S.O. 3358, ``Executive Committee for
Expedited Permitting'' (signed Oct. 25, 2017), Interior established an
Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting to help improve the
Department's permitting processes for energy projects. This will
involve improving the permitting processes for energy-related projects,
as well as the harmonization of appurtenant environmental reviews.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that
continues its efforts to improve the Department's permitting processes,
including interagency coordination and environmental review processes,
for various types of infrastructure projects. Some of the regulatory
actions planned for 2019 that will help to support those objectives
include:
A Departmental rule that is being developed to update and
streamline Interior's NEPA processes--``Implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969''; and
The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulatory
actions:
[cir] ``Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision
of Regulations to Address Interagency Cooperation'';
[cir] ``Endangered and Threatened Species of Wildlife and Plants;
Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating
Critical Habitat'';
[cir] ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations
for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Blanket
Section 4(d) Rule''; and
[cir] ``Endangered Species Act Section 10 Regulations; Exceptions
Regarding the Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species of
Wildlife and Plants.''
Increasing Outdoor Recreation for All Americans, Enhancing Conservation
Stewardship, and Improving Management of Species and Their Habitat
On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed 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.
With S.O. 3356, ``Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and
Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States,
Tribes, and Territories,'' which was signed on 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.
On April 18, 2018, Secretary Zinke signed S.O. 3365,
``Establishment of a Senior National Adviser for Recreation,'' and S.O.
3366, ``Increasing Recreational Opportunities on Lands and Waters
Managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.'' Those Secretary's
Orders provide additional support for Interior's continuing efforts to
increase access to outdoor recreation on public lands for all American.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that
will help to achieve its goals of expanding opportunities for outdoor
recreation, including hunting and fishing, for all Americans; enhancing
conservation stewardship; and improving the management of species and
their habitat. The regulatory actions that Interior is planning to
pursue in accordance with the aforementioned goals include:
A regulatory action that would align Federal regulations
regarding sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska
with State of Alaska laws and regulations; and
[[Page 57896]]
Regulatory actions that would authorize certain
recreational activities, such as off-road vehicle use, snowmobiling and
bicycling, within designated areas of certain National Park System
units.
Upholding Trust Responsibilities to the Federally Recognized American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Addressing the Challenges of
Economic Development
The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) are 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. In
fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory agenda
that supports that commitment.
Aggregate Deregulatory and Significant Regulatory Actions
Interior made substantial progress in reducing regulatory burdens
upon the American public. Since the issuance of E.O. 13771 in January
2017, Interior has finalized deregulatory actions that provide a total
of over $200 million in annualized costs savings. In fiscal year 2019,
Interior expects to complete deregulatory actions that will provide
approximately $50 million in annualized costs savings. Interior does
not currently expect to publish any significant regulatory actions
during the next year that will be subject to the offset requirements of
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 Interior bureaus and offices.
Bureau of 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 573 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 American Indians and Indian tribes.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory agenda will continue to focus
on priorities that ease regulatory burdens on tribes, American Indians
and Alaska Natives, and others subject to BIA regulations, in
accordance with E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' and E.O. 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.'' In accordance with this focus, BIA has identified a provision
in the Tribal Transportation Program regulation that may be appropriate
for revision because it imposes data collection and reporting
requirements that are potentially unnecessary under current law. BIA
also plans to finalize a regulation that would streamline the right-of-
way process for governmental entities seeking a waiver of the
requirement to obtain a bond in certain cases. To reduce documentary
burden, BIA is planning to finalize a rule that would allow for the
recording in land title records of a memorandum of lease, rather than
requiring recording of all the lease documents.
Because many of its existing regulations require compliance with
the NEPA, BIA is also working on parallel efforts to 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.''
The BIA has one potentially significant regulatory action on its
agenda that would revise the 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 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 the offset requirements under E.O. 13771.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million
acres of public land, known as the National System of Public Lands,
primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The Bureau
also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate
throughout the nation. As stewards, the BLM pursues its multiple-use
mission, providing opportunities for economic growth through uses such
as 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 that we use every day to heat our homes,
build our roads, and feed our families. The BLM strives 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 deregulatory actions for the
coming year:
Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reductions
(RIN 1004-AE58); and
Revisions to Oil and Gas Site Security, Oil Measurement,
and Gas Measurement Regulations (RIN 1004-AE59).
BLM has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771
planned in 2019.
Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reductions
The BLM is considering a proposed rule to streamline the royalty
rate reduction process for non-energy solid leasable minerals. The
proposed rule would address shortcomings with the existing royalty rate
reduction regulations for non-energy solid leasable minerals at 43 CFR
subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum
Royalties.
The current regulations establish the royalty rate reduction
process. However, that process is believed to be unnecessarily
burdensome and the standards are higher than the applicable statute
requires for approval of a royalty rate reduction. The proposed rule
would streamline the royalty rate reduction process and align the BLM
regulations more closely with the standards of the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920.
Revisions to Oil and Gas Site Security, Oil Measurement, and Gas
Measurement Regulations
On November 17, 2016, the BLM issued three final rules that updated
and replaced the BLM's existing Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Onshore
Orders) for site security (Onshore Order 3), measurement of oil
(Onshore Order 4), and measurement of gas (Onshore Order 5). The three
rules were codified in Title
[[Page 57897]]
43 of the Code of Federal Regulations at subparts 3170 (Onshore Oil and
Gas Production: General), 3173 (Requirements for Site Security and
Production Handling), 3174 (Measurement of Oil), and 3175 (Measurement
of Gas). These rules were prompted by external and internal oversight
reviews, which found that many of the BLM's production measurement and
accountability policies were outdated and inconsistently applied. The
rules addressed some of the Government Accountability Office's concerns
for areas of high risk with regard to the Department's production
accountability. The rulemakings also provide a process for approving
new measurement technology that meets defined performance goals.
In accordance with E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth'' (March 28, 2017), and S.O. 3349, ``American Energy
Independence'' (March 29, 2017), the BLM has undertaken a review of the
rules to determine if certain provisions may have added regulatory
burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain
economic growth, and prevent job creation. As a result of this review,
the BLM is considering a proposed rulemaking action that will propose
to modify certain provisions of 43 CFR subparts 3170, 3173, 3174, and
3175 in order to reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulatory
requirements.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
The 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 E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth,'' BOEM is committed to the safe and
orderly development of our offshore energy 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
E.O. 13795, ``Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy
Strategy,'' specifically addressed certain Interior rules related to
offshore energy. To implement E.O. 13795, 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. In accordance with S.O. 3350, BOEM
has:
Reconsidered its financial assurance policies expressed in
Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01 related to offshore oil and gas
activities. BOEM is currently working on a proposed rule to protect
taxpayers from unnecessary liabilities while minimizing unnecessary
regulatory burdens on industry.
Ceased activities to promulgate the ``Offshore Air Quality
Control, Reporting, and Compliance'' proposed rule, which was published
on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19717). Following extensive review, BOEM is now
completing a more limited final rule that will implement BOEM's
statutory responsibility to ensure that OCS operations conducted under
a BOEM approved plan are in compliance with statutory mandates.
Reviewed, 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,'' which was
published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with the
policy set forth in section 2 of E.O. 13795. As a result of that
review, BOEM and BSEE are considering deregulatory options for the
rule.
BOEM has no economically significant regulatory actions planned for
fiscal year 2019.
Streamlining Renewable Energy Regulations
BOEM's renewable energy program has matured over the past 8 years
as it has conducted 7 auctions and issued 13 commercial leases for
offshore wind. Through that experience and stakeholder engagement, BOEM
has identified deregulatory opportunities for reforming, streamlining,
and clarifying its renewable energy regulations. This proposed
rulemaking contains reforms that are intended to facilitate offshore
renewable energy development, while not decreasing environmental
safeguards. The rulemaking advances, and is consistent with, the
Administration's deregulatory and energy security policies.
Compliance With Executive and Secretary's Orders, 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 direction in E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth,'' E.O. 13795, ``Implementing an
America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,'' as well as E.O. 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' BSEE has
reviewed and will continue to review its existing regulations to
determine whether they may unnecessarily burden the development or use
of domestically produced energy resources, constrain economic growth,
or prevent job creation. BSEE is a well-positioned partner ready to
help all stakeholders maintain the Nation's position as a global energy
leader and foster energy independence for the benefit of the American
people, while ensuring that offshore oil and gas activity in the Outer
Continental Shelf is performed in a safe and environmentally
responsible manner.
In the coming year, BSEE plans to finalize two deregulatory actions
and three regulatory actions. BSEE has no
[[Page 57898]]
significant regulatory actions that are expected to be subject to E.O.
13771 planned for the coming year.
Deregulatory Actions
BSEE has identified the following deregulatory actions under E.O.
13771 as high priorities for fiscal year 2019:
Well Control and Blowout Prevention Systems Rule Revision
In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon incident in
2010, 14 external organizations made a total of 424 recommendations,
which were expressed through 26 separate reports, in order to improve
the safety of offshore oil and gas operations. BSEE subsequently issued
four rules that addressed those recommendations, which included the
April 2016 final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well
Control'' (81 FR 25888) (``2016 Well Control Rule'' or ``2016 rule'').
The 2016 Well Control Rule consolidated the equipment and operational
requirements for well control into one part of BSEE's regulations;
enhanced blowout preventer (BOP), well design, and modified well-
control requirements; and incorporated certain industry technical
standards.
Consistent with the policy direction of E.O.s 13771 and 13795 and
S.O. 3350, BSEE undertook a review of the 2016 Well Control Rule with a
view toward encouraging energy exploration and production and reducing
unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring that any such activity is
safe and environmentally responsible. After thoroughly reexamining the
2016 Well Control Rule, on May 11, 2018, BSEE published a proposed rule
entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental
Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions'' (83 FR
22128) (``proposed rule''), to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage
job-creating development, while still ensuring safe and environmentally
responsible offshore oil and gas operations.
In developing the proposed rule, BSEE carefully analyzed all 342
provisions of the 2016 Well Control Rule, and identified 59 of those
provisions--or less than 18% of the 2016 Rule--as appropriate for
revision or deletion.\1\ During this process, BSEE also compared each
of the proposed changes to the 424 recommendations arising from the 26
separate reports developed in the wake of and in response to the
Deepwater Horizon incident, and determined that none of the proposed
changes contradicts or ignores any of those recommendations, or would
alter any provision of the 2016 Well Control Rule in a way that would
make the result inconsistent with any of the recommendations. Among the
potential changes included in the proposed rule are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A provision represents a requirement of the operator that
may be comprised of a single citation or multiple citations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revising the accumulator system requirements and
accumulator bottle requirements for Blowout Preventers (BOPs) to better
align with industry standards, particularly API Standard 53--Blowout
Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells;
Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift
boat approaches;
Revising the BOP control station and pod testing schedules
to ensure component functionality without inadvertently requiring
duplicative testing;
Removing certain prescriptive requirements for real-time
monitoring; and
Replacing the required use of a BSEE-approved verification
of organization (BAVO) with the use of an independent third-party for
certain certifications and verifications of BOP systems and components,
and removing the requirement to have a BAVO submit a Mechanical
Integrity Assessment report for the BOP stack and system.
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf Rule
BSEE has reviewed, in consultation with BOEM, 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 E.O. 13795. As a result of that
review, BSEE and BOEM are considering deregulatory options for the
rule.
In addition to the deregulatory actions previously identified, BSEE
will continue to review 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.
Regulatory Actions
BSEE has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771
planned for fiscal year 2019. However, BSEE plans to complete the
following three, non-significant rulemakings before the end of that
fiscal year that are either statutorily required or are minor in
nature:
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; 2019 Inflation Adjustments for Civil
Penalties
This rulemaking would adjust the level of civil monetary penalties
contained in BSEE's regulations that are pursuant to the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (FCPIA) requires Federal
agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to civil penalties
contained in its regulations.
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act; 2019 Inflation Adjustments
for Civil Penalties
To provide for a more cohesive and streamlined approach for making
annual inflation adjustments to BSEE's FOGRMA-related civil penalties
under the FCPIA, this rulemaking would remove the civil monetary
amounts contained in BSEE's regulations and replace them with a cross-
reference to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue's (ONRR) FOGRMA
civil penalty regulations. Pursuant to the FCPIA, ONRR makes inflation
adjustments to its FOGRMA civil penalties on an annual basis pursuant
to the FCPIA.
Privacy Act Regulations; Exemption for the Investigations Case
Management System
Interior will amend its regulations to exempt certain records from
particular provisions of the Privacy Act, which BSEE maintains to
conduct and document incident investigations related to operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) will continue to
collect, account for, and disburse revenues from Federal offshore
energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on Federal
and Indian lands. The program operates nationwide and is primarily
responsible for timely and accurate collection, distribution, and
accounting for revenues associated with mineral and energy production.
ONRR's regulatory plan for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019
is as follows:
By January 15, 2019, ONRR will draft and publish in the Federal
Register a final rule (1012-AA24) to adjust for inflation ONRR's daily
maximum civil penalty rates, to be effective for calendar year 2019.
This adjustment is required
[[Page 57899]]
by law (28 U.S.C. 2461) and OMB Guidance.
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
OSMRE is continuing to review additional actions to reduce burdens
on energy production, 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
2019.
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. The FWS also provides opportunities for Americans to enjoy the
outdoors and our shared natural heritage.
The 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 the 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, the regulatory priorities of FWS will
include:
Regulations Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The FWS, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
will propose regulatory actions to improve the administration of the
ESA, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The FWS and NMFS
are developing regulatory reforms that will create efficiencies and
streamline the ESA consultation process, as well as the processes for
listing and delisting threatened and endangered species. In addition,
FWS is developing a regulatory action that would remove the blanket
section 4(d) rule applying to species listed as threatened. This change
will align FWS's process with NMFS and result in regulations and
prohibitions tailored to the conservation needs of specific species.
The FWS is also considering a rulemaking action that would improve
and clarify its regulations that implement section 10 of the ESA and
pertain to the issuance of permits for the take of threatened and
endangered species.
The FWS also plans to take multiple regulatory actions under the
ESA in order to prevent the extinction and facilitate the 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, in accordance with the National Listing Workplan and
3-Year Downlisting and Delisting Workplan. These Workplans enable FWS
to prioritize its workload based on the needs of species, while
providing greater clarity and predictability about the timing of ESA
classification determinations to State wildlife agencies, nonprofit
organizations, and various other diverse stakeholders and partners. The
goals of the Workplans are to encourage proactive conservation so that
Federal protections are not needed in the first place and to remove
regulatory burdens once a listed species' status is improved or the
species is recovered.
Regulations Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
In carrying out its responsibility to manage migratory bird
populations, FWS plans to 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. FWS is considering and plans to propose a regulatory
action to revise and improve the administration of the MBTA.
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, 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 its 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 E.O. 13609, ``Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation,'' FWS will update its CITES
regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th and 17th
Conference of the 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.
The FWS has no significant regulatory actions that are subject to
E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2019.
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
[[Page 57900]]
recreation throughout the United States and the world.
The NPS intends to issue a number of deregulatory actions and no
significant regulatory actions during the upcoming year.
Deregulatory Actions
The NPS will undertake deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' that will
reduce regulatory costs. Several of these actions also comply with
section 6 of E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' because they will remove or modify outdated, unnecessarily
complicated and burdensome regulations.
The NPS intends to:
Issue a final rule to align sport hunting regulations in
national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations and to
enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal
lands and waters.
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.
NPS Response to Secretarial Order 3366: Increasing Recreational
Opportunities on Lands and Waters Managed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior
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:
Off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore
(final rule), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (final rule), Big
Cypress National Preserve (proposed rule), and Fire Island National
Seashore (proposed rule);
Bicycling at Pea Ridge National Military Park (final
rule), Hot Springs National Park (proposed rule), Buffalo National
River (proposed rule), and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
(proposed rule);
Launching of non-motorized vessels from Colonial National
Historic Park (proposed rule);
Snowmobiles within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
(proposed rule);
Personal watercraft within Gulf Islands National Seashore
(proposed rule); and
Recreational flying within Death Valley National Park
(proposed rule).
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. As outdoor recreation technology, uses, and
patterns evolve, the NPS regulations and management policies will also
need to evolve. The NPS is working to address emerging forms of
recreation such as electric bicycles (e-bikes).
Other Priority Rulemakings of Particular Interest to Small Business
The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule to implement the Visitor
Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA) given to the NPS by Congress
in Title VII of the National Park Service Centennial Act. This
authority allows the NPS to award and administer commercial services
contracts (and related professional services contracts) for the
operation and expansion of commercial visitor facilities and visitor
services programs in units of the National Park System.
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. In addition, we
continue to provide increased security at our facilities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
The Bureau of Reclamation intends to publish no deregulatory or
significant regulatory actions in fiscal year 2019.
Other Regulatory Actions of the Department of the Interior
Natural Resource Damages and Restoration--Hazardous Substances (RIN:
1090-AB17)
The existing regulation (43 CFR 11) provides procedures that
Natural Resource Trustees may use to evaluate the need for and means of
restoring, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of public natural
resources that are injured or destroyed as a result of releases of
hazardous substances. The Department is considering a potential
rulemaking action that would provide an opportunity for others (Federal
agencies, States, Indian Tribes, and interested public) to provide
input on areas of the existing regulations that could be revised to
increase effectiveness, efficiency, and restoration of the injured
resources.
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (RIN:
1090-AB18)
The Department is developing regulations to streamline its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by increasing the number of
categorical exclusions and updating its NEPA regulations.
DOI--ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT (ASLM)
Proposed Rule Stage
91. Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the
Arctic Outer Continental Shelf
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 to 1356a; 33 U.S.C. 2701
CFR Citation: 30 CFR 250; 30 CFR 254; 30 CFR 550.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would revise specific provisions of
the regulations published in the final Arctic Exploratory Drilling
Rule, 81 FR 46478 (July 15, 2016), which established a regulatory
framework for exploratory drilling and related operations within the
Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on the Outer Continental
Shelf of Alaska. The rulemaking for this RIN replaces the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement's RIN 1014-AA40.
Timetable:
[[Page 57901]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Bryce Barlan, Regulatory Analyst, Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166, Phone: 703 787-1126, Email:
[email protected].
Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka, Chief, OPRA, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC
20240, Phone: 202 208-6352, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1082-AA01
BILLING CODE: 4334-63-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2018
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 fundamental
mission is to protect people by enforcing the rule of law. To fulfill
this mission, the Department is devoting resources and utilizing the
legal authorities available to combat violent crime and terrorism,
prosecute drug traffickers, 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 continues to revise and
improve 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, that for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination. 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.''
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 continues
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 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.
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 2019, to seek modifications to its regulations governing
commerce in firearms and explosives to fulfill these objectives.
As its key regulatory initiative, ATF plans to amend its
regulations to clarify that ``bump fire'' stocks, slide-fire devices,
and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type
devices) are ``machineguns'' as defined by the National Firearms Act of
1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, because such devices allow a
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing
cycle with a single pull of the trigger. This is one of the
Department's Regulatory Plan entries.
In addition, 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 also 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,
[[Page 57902]]
scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA plans to update its
regulations to implement provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act of 2016 (RIN 1117-AB45) relating to the partial filling of
prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances. This is one of the
Department's Regulatory Plan initiatives.
In fiscal year 2019, DEA anticipates issuing a rulemaking action
addressing suspicious orders of controlled substances (RIN 1117-AB47) .
This proposed rule would remedy the inadequacies of the existing
reporting requirements by defining the term ``suspicious order'' and
specifying the procedures registrants must follow upon receiving such
orders. In addition, DEA plans to publish six deregulatory actions
(RINs 1117-AB37, 1117-AB40, 1117-AB43, 1117-AB44, 1117-AB45, and 1117-
AB46). Consistent with E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, DEA is continuing to
review 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.
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 150,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens
should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted
some form of protection or relief from removal. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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 particular, EOIR intends to propose revisions to the existing
asylum regulations, pursuant to the Attorney General's statutory
authority, to ensure the faithful and efficient execution of asylum
processes (RIN 1125-AA87). This is one of the Department's Regulatory
Plan initiatives.
In other pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to
revise and update the regulations relating to immigration proceedings
to increase efficiencies and productivity, while also safeguarding due
process. In particular, EOIR is working to expand upon its Public
Notice of June 25, 2018, by publishing a proposed rule regarding its
new EOIR Case and Appeals System, which provides for greatly expanded
electronic filing and calendaring for cases before EOIR's immigration
courts and BIA (RIN 1125-AA81).
In addition, EOIR is planning to publish a regulation to finalize
an interim final rule from 2005 regarding background and security
investigation checks (RIN 1125-AA44), and is 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 EOIR adjudicators will apply
(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 Department of Homeland Security
regulations and update outdated references to the pre-2003 immigration
system (RIN 1125-AA71). The Department also continues to work toward
rulemaking that will assist in identifying and sanctioning those
defraud the system itself and the individuals who appear before EOIR
(RIN 1125-AA82).
Civil Rights (CRT)
CRT regulations implement 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.
Pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders
13771 and 13777, CRT is undertaking a review of its guidance documents
to determine whether any of those documents may be outdated,
inconsistent, or duplicative, and to ensure compliance with the
Attorney General's November 16, 2017 Memorandum entitled Prohibition on
Improper Guidance Documents.
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 will continue to review its existing
regulations to streamline them, where possible.
OJP published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the OJJDP Formula
Grant Program on August 8, 2016, and in early 2017 published a final
rule addressing some of those provisions. OJP anticipates publishing a
second final OJJDP Formula Grant Program rule to remove certain
provisions of the regulations that are no longer legally supported
(deleting text that unnecessarily repeats statutory provisions or has
been rendered obsolete by statutory changes) and to make technical
corrections. After publishing the second final rule, OJJDP anticipates
publishing a third final rule to finalize the remaining substantive
aspects of the proposed rule, and to further streamline and improve the
existing regulation by providing or revising definitions for clarity,
and by deleting text that addresses matters already (or better)
addressed in other places (e.g., other rules or the program
solicitation).
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 serves both general and
specialized inmate needs.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for protecting
and defending the United States against terrorist and foreign
intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of the
[[Page 57903]]
United States, and providing leadership and criminal justice services
to Federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.
Only in limited contexts does the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example,
the FBI is currently drafting a rule that establishes the criteria for
use by a designated entity(ies) in making a determination of fitness as
described under the Child Protection Improvements Act (CPIA), 34 United
States Code Sec. 40102, Public Law 115-141. The CPIA requires that the
Attorney General shall, by rule, establish the criteria for use by
designated entities in making a determination of fitness described in
subsection (b)(4) of the Act concerning whether the provider has been
convicted of, or is under pending indictment for, a crime that bears
upon the provider's fitness to have responsibility for the safety and
well- being of children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities
and shall convey that determination to the qualified entity. Such
criteria shall be based on the criteria established pursuant to section
108(a)(3)(G)(i) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (34 U.S.C. 40102 note)
and section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858f).
DOJ--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES (ATF)
Final Rule Stage
92. Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that
would interpret the statutory definition of machinegun in the National
Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether
certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that
definition.
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify that the
statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e.,
bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that
firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger,
such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms
Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR
447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are
machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing
cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices
convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by
functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that
harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner
that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary
to carry out the provisions of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States
Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the definition of
machinegun proposed for adoption in this rule is expressed in the
abstract for the rule itself.
Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed
rule that would allow ATF to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Absent
congressional action, the only feasible alternative is to maintain the
status quo.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule will be ``economically
significant,'' that is, the rule will have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. ATF
estimates the total cost of this rule at $320.9 million over 10 years.
The total 7% discount cost is estimated at $234.1 million, and the
discounted costs would be $39.6 million and $39.2 million annualized at
3% and 7% respectively. The estimate includes costs to the public for
loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and
sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified
costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device
owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of
future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not
calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that
the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year
with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to
destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including
unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time.
This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public
safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device
is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-
stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass
shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first
responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them
to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.
Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be
threatened by the widespread availability to the public of bump-stock-
devices.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/26/17 82 FR 60929
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/25/18 .......................
NPRM................................ 03/29/18 83 FR 13442
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/27/18 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Vivian Chu, Regulations Attorney, Department of
Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New
York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648-7070.
RIN: 1140-AA52
DOJ--DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA)
Proposed Rule Stage
93. Implementation of the Provision of the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act of 2016 Relating to the Partial Filling of Prescriptions
for Schedule II Controlled Substances
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821; 21 U.S.C. 829; 21 U.S.C. 831; 21
U.S.C. 871; Pub. L. 114-198, sec. 702
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1306.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 became law. One section of the CARA amended
the Controlled Substances Act to allow a pharmacist, if certain
conditions are met, to partially fill a prescription for a schedule II
controlled substance when requested by the prescribing practitioner or
the patient. The Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing to amend
[[Page 57904]]
its regulations to implement this statutory change.
Statement of Need: This rule is needed to implement the partial
fill provisions of the CARA. The CARA amended the CSA to allow for the
partial filling of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances
under certain conditions. Specifically, the CARA amended 21 U.S.C. 829
by adding new subsection (f), which allows a pharmacist to partially
fill a prescription for a schedule II controlled substance where
requested by the prescribing practitioner or the patient. However, the
CARA does not state how the prescribing practitioner should indicate
that a prescription for a schedule II controlled substance be partially
filled, nor how a pharmacist should record the partial filling of such
a prescription. This rule proposes prescribing and recordkeeping
requirements to provide clear direction to practitioners and patients.
The changes in this rule are also important in helping address the
ongoing opioid epidemic, by allowing practitioners and patients to
limit the amount of schedule II opioids left unused after a course of
treatment.
Summary of Legal Basis: While the CARA laid out the framework for
partial filling of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances,
there were a number of issues left unresolved. Congress granted the DEA
authority to fill in any gaps in the regulatory scheme not addressed by
the statute itself; the CARA provides that partial filling of schedule
II prescriptions is permitted if the prescription is written and filled
in accordance with, among other things, regulations issued by DEA.
Additionally, under 21 U.S.C. 871(b), the Attorney General may
promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures deemed
necessary for the efficient execution of the Attorney General's
functions, including general enforcement of the CSA. Consistent with 21
U.S.C. 871(a), the Attorney General has delegated that authority to the
DEA.
Alternatives: This rule would only amend the DEA's regulations to
the extent necessary to fully implement the partial fill provisions of
the CARA, and would be in addition to the existing regulations of 21
CFR 1306.13. Consistent with 21 U.S.C. 829(f)(3), any circumstances
allowing a lawful partial fill prior to the implementation of the
statute would still be allowed under the new rules.
The proposed rule will include provisions aimed at giving patients
and practitioners a simple and low-cost way to request and record
partial fills that also ensures accountability and prevents diversion
of controlled substances. The DEA will request comment on the proposed
rule and will consider all alternatives. Special consideration will be
given to flexible approaches that reduce burdens and maintain freedom
of choice for the public.
Some of the provisions in this proposed rule merely restate the
general requirements of the CARA for partial filling of prescriptions
for schedule II controlled substances. Since these provisions are
mandated by Congress, the DEA is obligated to incorporate them into its
regulations, and has no discretion to consider alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In order to ensure accountability
and maintain the closed system of distribution, the proposed rule will
likely impose certain costs on DEA registrants. Current projections
indicate the primary cost would be the additional time needed to be
spent by pharmacies to fill the remaining portions of partially filled
prescriptions. Whereas before the CARA, a pharmacy would fill all of a
schedule II prescription during a single visit by a patient, if the
practitioner or the patient requests a partial fill, the pharmacy will
only fill part of the prescription on the patient's first visit, and
will need to fill the remainder of the prescription if the patient
returns for a second visit. The DEA currently estimates the total cost
of the proposed rule to be approximately $12 million annually.
The provisions of this rule may also require prescribers to take
additional time writing prescriptions, since they would need to include
partial fill instructions on the prescriptions, and pharmacists to take
additional time tracking the status of partially filled prescriptions,
in order to ensure that the proper amount of medication is dispensed if
a patient returns to fill the remainder of a prescription, but the DEA
believes this additional time required would be minimal, and that the
cost of such additional time would be minimal.
There is also the potential for benefits to patients and society as
a result of this proposed rule. Patients could request a partial fill
of a prescription if they are unlikely to use the full amount, and save
money by not paying for pills they would not use. Furthermore, reducing
the quantity of leftover schedule II controlled substances would reduce
the risk of diversion and the risk of improper disposal and associated
environmental impact. This is an enabling rule because it allows for
partial fills of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances,
which was previously prohibited.
Risks: If the DEA did not promulgate this rule, patients and
practitioners would face uncertainty in complying with the requirements
for partial fills of prescriptions for schedule II controlled
substances. While the statute does directly address many aspects of the
partial fill process, there are a number of details left out, which
must be supplied by regulation. Without such clarifying regulations,
few practitioners would take advantage of the partial fill provisions
for fear of violating federal law, thus frustrating the original
purposes of the CARA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/.
Agency Contact: Kathy L. Federico, Acting Section Chief, Regulatory
Drafting and Support Section/Diversion Control Division, Department of
Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, VA 22152, Phone: 202 598-2596, Fax: 202 307-9536, Email:
www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
RIN: 1117-AB45
DOJ--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)
Proposed Rule Stage
94. Procedures for Asylum
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1208.3; 8 CFR 1208.13; 8 CFR 1208.16.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will amend the regulations related to asylum,
including bars to asylum eligibility, the form of an alien's
application for asylum, and the reconsideration of discretionary
denials of such applications.
Statement of Need: The rule seeks to better promote the Attorney
General's application of law through his discretionary authorities that
statute and existing regulation provide. The Attorney General seeks to
clarify and expand upon certain provisions related to asylum.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act
[[Page 57905]]
provides the Attorney General with the broad and general authority to
establish, by regulation, bases for findings of ineligibility for
asylum INA 208(b)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C).
Alternatives: The alternative to this rulemaking would be to
continue to leave immigration court and BIA adjudicators without clear
rules by which they should evaluate applications for asylum and to
further burden the backlogged immigration courts with incomplete
applications.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs
associated with the DOJ portion of the rule. EOIR will benefit from the
rule's promulgation by reducing resources spent processing incomplete
or invalid asylum claims.
Risks: EOIR does not anticipate any risks associated with the DOJ
portion of this rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Department
of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Suite 2616, Falls Church, VA 20530, Phone: 703 305-0289, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1125-AA87
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
2018 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Safe and Family-Sustaining 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 works to hold employers 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 and
promoting job creation his top priorities. 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 be subject to enforcement.
During the past year, the Department took action to help millions
employed by small businesses gain access to quality, affordable health
coverage through its Association Health Plan reform. This reform allows
employers, including small businesses, and working owners--many of whom
are facing much higher premiums and fewer coverage options as a result
of Obamacare--a greater ability to join together and gain many of the
regulatory advantages enjoyed by large employers, and thereby offer
better health coverage options to their employees.
In the coming year, the Department will build upon its previous
work in providing for workforce protections, protecting the jobs of
American workers, and helping the workforce add more family-sustaining
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.
The Department's regulatory actions 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 is silent, the Department
does not have the authority to write the law.
The proposals that follow are common-sense approaches in areas
needing regulatory attention, presenting a balanced plan for protecting
employees, aiding them in the acquisition of needed skills, and helping
the regulated community to do its part.
The Department's Regulatory Agenda is consistent with the
requirements of 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.''
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
works to protect the benefit plans of workers, retirees, and their
families.
On August 31, 2018, President Trump issued an executive order
establishing the policy of the Federal Government to expand access to
workplace retirement plans. Pursuant to the executive order, EBSA will
consider ways to permit employees at different businesses to
participate in a single workplace plan. EBSA intends to consider ways
to allow small businesses to sponsor Association Retirement Plans for
their employees. EBSA also intends to consider ways to expand access to
workplace plans for sole proprietors, sometimes called working owners.
To implement these steps, EBSA is considering issuing a notice of
proposed rulemaking that would clarify when separate businesses can
elect to jointly sponsor an Association Retirement Plan.
EBSA, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Health and Human Services will, consistent with Executive
Order 13813, consider proposing regulations or revising guidance
consistent with law and sound policy to increase the usability of
health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to expand employers' ability
to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in
conjunction with nongroup coverage.
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 has been
informed by the comments previously received in response to its Request
for Information.
WHD will also propose an update to its regulations concerning joint
employment, i.e., those situations in which a worker is considered an
[[Page 57906]]
employee of two or more employers jointly.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay
covered employees at least one and one half times their regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. WHD will
propose to amend its regulations to clarify, update, and define regular
rate requirements under the FLSA.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) ensures
that federal contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action and
do not, among other things, discriminate on the basis of race, color,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin,
disability, or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP plans to update its
regulations to comply with current law regarding protections for
religious organizations.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversee 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 that requiring the ancillary provisions broadly may not
improve worker protection and may be redundant with overlapping
protections in other standards. Accordingly, OSHA sought 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 agency is reviewing the public comments and formulating
a final rule.
OSHA issued a proposal on July 30, 2018, to revise provisions of
the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
final rule. OSHA reviewed the May 2016 final rule as part of its
regulatory reform efforts and proposed changes intended to reduce
unnecessary burdens while maintaining worker protections. In
particular, the proposed rule addresses concerns about the release of
private information in the electronic submission of injury and illness
reports by employers. Although OSHA stated its intention not to publish
personally identifiable information (PII) included on Forms 300 and 301
in the May 2016 final rule, OSHA has now determined that it cannot
guarantee the non-release of private information. It has now proposed
requiring submission of only the Form 300A summary data, which does not
include any private information, not the individual, case-specific data
recorded in Forms 300 and 301. If finalized, the rule would allow OSHA
to continue to use the summary data to make targeted inspections, while
better protecting worker privacy.
OSHA also continues work on its Standards Improvements Projects
(SIPs), with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. These actions are
intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent
safety and health standards. OSHA published three earlier final
standards to remove unnecessary provisions, reducing costs or paperwork
burden on affected employers, while maintaining needed worker
protections.
Finally, 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. ETA and WHD are amending
regulations regarding the H-2A non-immigrant visa program. This action
will include necessary technical improvements to the existing H-2A
regulations, modernizing and streamlining the functionality of the
program.
DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)
Proposed Rule Stage
95. 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 the appropriate salary level for
exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees. In
developing the NPRM, the Department will be informed by the comments
received in response to its 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................................ 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA20
DOL--WHD
96. Regular and Basic Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 548; 29 CFR 778.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department
will propose to amend 29 CFR parts 548 and 778, to clarify, update, and
define basic rate and regular rate requirements under sections 7(e) and
7(g)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Statement of Need: The majority of 29 CFR part 778 was promulgated
more
[[Page 57907]]
than sixty years ago. The Department believes that changes in the 21st
century workplace are not reflected in its current regulatory
framework. While the Department has periodically updated various
sections of part 778 over the past several decades, they have not
addressed the changes in compensation practices and relevant laws. The
Department is interested in ensuring that its regulations provide
appropriate guidance to employers offering these more modern forms of
compensation and benefits regarding their inclusion in, or exclusion
from, the regular rate. Clarifying this issue will ensure that
employers have the flexibility to provide such compensation and
benefits to their employees, thereby providing employers more
flexibility in the compensation and benefits packages they offer to
employees. Similarly, the Department believes that the proposed changes
will facilitate compliance with the FLSA and lessen litigation
regarding the regular rate. Additionally, the Department has not
updated part 548 since 1967.
Summary of Legal Basis: Part 778 constitutes the official
interpretation of the Department with respect to the meaning and
application of the maximum hours and overtime compensation requirements
contained in section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207, including
calculation of the regular rate. Additionally, part 548 sets out the
requirements for authorized basic rates under section 7(g)(3) of the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207(g).
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA24
DOL--WHD
97. Joint Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 791.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department
will propose to clarify the contours of the joint employment
relationship to assist the regulated community in complying with the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Statement of Need: The majority of 29 CFR part 791 was promulgated
sixty years ago. The Department believes that changes in the 21st
century workplace are not reflected in its current regulatory
framework. Consistent with the Administration's priorities to enact
administrative reforms and provide clarity to enhance compliance, the
Department is considering changes to its regulations concerning joint
employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These proposed changes
are intended to provide clarity to the regulated community and thereby
enhance compliance. The Department believes the proposed changes will
help to provide more uniform standards nationwide.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is authorized by sections
3(d), (e), and (g) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(d),
(e), and (g). Part 791 constitutes the official interpretation of the
Department with respect to joint employment.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
RIN: 1235-AA26
DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)
Proposed Rule Stage
98. Labor Certification Process for Temporary Agricultural
Employment in the United States (H-2A Workers)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1188
CFR Citation: 20 CFR 655, subpart B; 29 CFR 501.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The United States Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment
and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division are amending
regulations regarding the H-2A non-immigrant visa program at 20 CFR
part 655, subpart B. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will
include necessary technical improvements to the existing H-2A
regulations which will modernize and streamline the overall function of
the program. The NPRM will also make necessary legal changes to
modernize the regulation that have arisen since the current H-2A
regulation was published in 2010.
Statement of Need: DOL has identified necessary areas of the
regulation that should be modernized and streamlined so that the agency
can more effectively carry out its mandate to protect the wages and
working conditions of U.S. workers while also allowing the program to
operate efficiently. DOL has also identified legal issues with the
current regulation that must be addressed.
Summary of Legal Basis: ETA is undertaking this rulemaking pursuant
to its authority under section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. In addition, courts have issued decisions since the publication of
the current regulation that have presented legal issues with the
regulation that must be addressed.
[[Page 57908]]
Alternatives: Alternatives will be provided and open to public
comment in the NPRM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimates of the costs and
benefits are still under development.
Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or
the environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of
Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Box #12-200,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 513-7350.
RIN: 1205-AB89
DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
99. Health Reimbursement Arrangements and Other Account-Based
Group Health Plans
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Public Law 111-148
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This regulatory action is being proposed in response to
Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition
Across the United States, and would increase the usability of HRAs, to
expand employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to
allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
Statement of Need: This regulatory action is being proposed in
response to Executive Order 13813, ``Promoting Healthcare Choice and
Competition Across the United States.'' The Executive Order directs the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury
(collectively, the Departments) to consider proposing regulations or
revising guidance consistent with law and sound policy to increase the
usability of health-reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to expand
employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs
to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
Summary of Legal Basis: Current joint final regulation issued by
the Departments prohibited HRA integration with individual market
policies. See 26 CFR 54.9815.2711, 29 CFR 2590.715-2711, and 45 CFR
147.126. The Departments are considering proposing regulations that
would permit integration and expand usability of HRAs in certain
circumstances.
Alternatives: To be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Amy J. Turner, Director, Office of Health Plan
Standards and Compliance Assistance, Department of Labor, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP
Building, Room N-5653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8335, Fax:
202 219-1942.
RIN: 1210-AB87
DOL--EBSA
100. Definition of an ``Employer'' Under Section 3(5) of
ERISA--Association Retirement Plans and Other Multiple Employer Plans
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002(2), 1002(5) and 1135
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This regulatory action would establish criteria under
section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for
purposes of being an ``employer'' able to establish and maintain an
employee pension benefit plan (as defined in section 3(2) of ERISA)
that is a multiple employer retirement savings plan (other than a
multiemployer plan defined in section 3(37) of ERISA).
Statement of Need: Many Americans do not have access to workplace
retirement plans, including 401(k)s. Small businesses are particularly
unlikely to offer workplace retirement plans because of high costs and
regulatory burdens. Regulatory changes are needed to make it easier and
less expensive for small businesses to offer workplace retirement plans
to their employees. Executive Order 13847, 83 FR 45321, directed the
Secretary of Labor to examine policies that would clarify and expand
the circumstances under which U.S. employers, especially small and mid-
sized businesses, may sponsor or participate in a multiple employer
plan or MEP as a workplace retirement savings option offered to their
employees, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Summary of Legal Basis: The proposal would clarify the statutory
definition of employer in section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002. This definition includes
direct employers and any other person acting indirectly in the interest
of the employer in relation to an employee benefit plan, including a
group or association of employers acting for an employer in such
capacity. Section 505 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1135, provides that the
Secretary of Labor may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary
or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.
Alternatives: The Department intends to conduct an assessment of
costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives to the planned regulation, which are identified by the
public, in order to conclude why the planned regulatory action is
preferable to the identified potential alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department intends to conduct an
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the regulatory action
together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs
and benefits.
Risks: This regulatory action is intended to reduce the risk that
America's workers will enter retirement with inadequate financial
resources. Too many American workers, including one-third of those in
the private-sector, have no access to workplace retirement plans,
burdening them with concerns about their financial futures. Polling
shows that nearly half of all Americans are concerned they will not
have enough money to live on during retirement.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57909]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, Deputy Director, Office of
Regulations and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room
N-5655, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8500, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1210-AB88
DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Final Rule Stage
101. 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 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: OSHA has estimated that, at 3
percent discount rate over 10 years, there are net annual cost savings
of $6.1 million per year for this final rule; at a discount rate of 7
percent there are net annual cost savings at $6.1 million per year.
When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost
savings of the final rule is $6.1 million with 7 percent discounting.
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.......................... 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
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
DOL--OSHA
102. Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657; 29 U.S.C. 673
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: OSHA published a proposed rule on July 30, 2018, to
remove provisions to the Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses final rule, 81 FR 29624 (May 12, 2016). OSHA proposed to
amend its recordkeeping regulation to remove the requirement to
electronically submit to OSHA information from 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). OSHA also proposed to add 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). OSHA is
reviewing comments and will publish a final rule in June 2019.
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 has
preliminarily determined that the risk of disclosure of the personally
identifiable information (PII) on the OSHA Form 300 and 301, the cost
to OSHA of collection and using the information, and the reporting
burden on employers are unjustified given the uncertain benefits of
collecting the information.
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 proposed that the benefits of the proposed
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. OSHA has
requested public comment on feasible alternatives to the Agency's
proposal.
[[Page 57910]]
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 $8.75 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................................ 07/03/18 83 FR 36494
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/28/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
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
103. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium
Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the
Federal Register (82 FR 2470). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to
beryllium and beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure
limits (PELs) were at significant risk of material impairment of
health, specifically chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. OSHA
also concluded that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of
[micro]g/m\3\ reduced this significant risk to the maximum extent
feasible. After a review of the comments received and a review of the
applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA proposed to revoke
ancillary provisions applicable to the construction and shipyard
sectors on June 28, 2018 (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. OSHA has evidence that beryllium exposure in these sectors is
limited to the following operations: Abrasive blasting in construction,
abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards. OSHA has a
number of standards already specifically applicable to these
operations, including ventilation (29 CFR 1926.57) and mechanical paint
removers (29 CFR 1915.34). 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.
Statement of Need: The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) proposed to revoke the ancillary provisions for
the construction and the shipyard sectors, which OSHA adopted on
January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2470), but retain the new lower permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and the short term exposure
limit (STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for each sector. OSHA will not
enforce the January 9, 2017, shipyard and construction standards
without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
OSHA has 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 has evidence that beryllium
exposure in these sectors is limited to the following operations:
Abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and
welding in shipyards. OSHA has a number of standards already applicable
to these operations. Based on a review of the comments received and a
review of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, 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: OSHA has several potential options. The first is to
retain the original standards promulgated in 2017 for construction and
shipyards, including all ancillary provisions. Alternatively, OSHA is
evaluating whether there is benefit to retaining certain ancillary
provisions that were proposed for rescission.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA preliminarily estimated that
rescinding the ancillary provisions will result in cost savings to
shipyard and construction establishments. For construction, cost
savings are $8.8 million (7% discounting) and $8.6 million (3%
discounting). For shipyards, cost savings are $3.5 million (7%
discounting) and $3.4 million (3% discounting). OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that there are limited to no foregone benefits (i.e., reduced
number of cases of Chronic Beryllium Disease) as a result of revoking
the ancillary provisions of the beryllium final standards for
construction and shipyards.
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM (Construction in Shipyards) 06/27/17 82 FR 29182
Published as 1218-AB76.
NPRM (Construction in Shipyards) 08/28/17 .......................
Comment Period End.
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N-3718,
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1218-AB76
RIN: 1218-AD21
BILLING CODE 4510-04-P
[[Page 57911]]
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 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). In response, we received more than 200 comments proposing
more than 1,000 ideas. We have reviewed these comments and are working
to implement ideas that streamline approval processes and guide
investment in infrastructure. 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). We received
over 2,800 comments in response and are currently undertaking a
comprehensive review of these comments. 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 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.
As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has
issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public
by at least $882 million (in net present value cost savings). Even when
the costs of significant regulatory actions are factored in, the
Department's deregulatory actions in FY2018 will still result in over
$500 million in net cost savings (in net present value). With the
RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a
manner that is fully consistent with enhancing safety. For example, in
March 2018, the FAA promulgated a rule titled Rotorcraft Pilot
Compartment View,
[[Page 57912]]
which will reduce the number of tests for nighttime operations, after
the Agency carefully considered the safety data and determined the
tests were unnecessary.
The Department has also significantly increased the number of
deregulatory actions it is pursuing. Today, DOT is pursuing over 120
deregulatory rulemakings, up from just 16 in the fall of 2016.
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 and
reliable, 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 10 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 maintaining and advancing safety while
reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the
development of autonomous vehicles, and updating regulations on fuel
efficiency.
FRA will continue to 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 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 Executive Orders 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 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
[[Page 57913]]
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 2019, the Department will issue an NPRM
proposing to establish the applicable regulatory standard for waivers
from the Buy America requirement on the basis that a product or item is
not manufactured in the United States meeting the applicable Buy
America requirement. This rulemaking will streamline and coordinate
aspects of the Buy America process across the Department.
In addition, 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.
During Fiscal Year 2019, FAA's regulatory priorities will be to
enable transformative UAS and commercial space technologies by
publishing two notices of proposed rulemaking (Updates to Clarify and
Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations, 2120-AL17 and
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AL31),
publishing an interim final rule on UAS marking (External Marking
Requirement for Small UAS, 2120-AL32), and advancing the Small Unmanned
Aircraft Over People (2120-AK85) rule. The Updates to Clarify and
Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations proposal would
update and consolidate current regulations contained in four separate
parts into a single regulatory part which will provide safety
objectives to be achieved for the launch of suborbital and orbital
expendable and reusable vehicles, and the reentry of vehicles. This
proposal will significantly streamline and simplify licensing of launch
and reentry operations and will enable novel operations.
FAA's top deregulatory priorities will be to issue three
final rules. Use of ADS-B in support of Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (RVSM), (2120-AK87) would revise the requirement for an
application to operate in RVSM airspace. Recognition of Pilot in
Command (PIC) Experience in the Military and in part 121 operations,
(2120-AL-03) would allow pilots with 121 PIC experience prior to July
31, 2013, but who were not serving as a PIC on that date, to count that
time toward the 1000 hour experience required to serve as a PIC in part
121 today. Severe Weather Detection Equipment Requirement for
Helicopter Air Ambulance (HAA) Operations, (2120-AK94) would allow HAA
operator to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and
approaches procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an
approved weather reporting source, in HAA aircraft without functioning
severe weather detection equipment, when there is no reasonable
expectation of severe weather at the destination, the alternate, or
along the route of flight.
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 2019, 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 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. 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 2019 will focus on removing
regulatory burdens and streamlining the grants program. The Agency will
consider changes to the hours of service regulations that would improve
operational flexibilities for motor carriers consistent with safety. 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
requirements. NHTSA pursues policies that enable safety technologies
and encourages 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 Fiscal Year 2019 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
[[Page 57914]]
economic burden. Most prominently, NHTSA plans to seek comments on
amendments to existing regulations to address barriers to the
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 finalize fuel
efficiency standards for light vehicles model years (MYs) 2021 thru
2026 (The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for
Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 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 continues to reflect 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. These actions
support a safe, high-performing passenger rail network, address the
safe and effective movement of energy products, and encourage
innovation and the adoption of new technology in the rail industry to
improve safety and efficiencies. FRA's regulatory priority for Fiscal
Year 2019 will be to continue its work on a final rule that will
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 would ease regulatory burdens on certain
passenger rail operations, allowing the development of advanced
technology and increasing safety benefits. More information about this
rule is in the DOT Unified Agenda.
Federal Transit Administration
The mission of FTA is to improve public transportation for
America's communities. To further that end, FTA provides financial and
technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses,
subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries, 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 furtherance of its mission and consistent with statutory
changes, in Fiscal Year 2019, FTA will focus on deregulatory actions.
Specifically, FTA will streamline the environmental review process for
transit projects, update its Project Management Oversight regulation,
and remove duplicative or outdated rules, such as the Capital Leases
regulation. 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 2019 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
[[Page 57915]]
to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of
interpretation, and 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 2019, OHMS will focus on two priority rulemakings.
The first is designed to reduce risks related to the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA aims to publish the final rule
``Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing
for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' (2137-AF08), that expands the
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans for crude oil
trains and requires railroads to share information about high-hazard
flammable train operations with State and tribal emergency response
commissions to improve community preparedness. The second rulemaking is
designed to reduce the risk of transporting lithium batteries by air by
addressing the unique challenges they pose. Specifically, ``Hazardous
Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported
by Aircraft'' (2137-AF20) 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.
OPS will focus on three pipeline rules. The first rulemaking 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). The second rulemaking will finalize the
testing and pressure reconfirmation of certain previously untested gas
transmission pipelines and certain gas transmission pipelines with
inadequate records, require operators incorporate seismicity into their
risk analysis and data integration, require the reporting of maximum
allowable operating pressure exceedances, allow a 6-month extension of
integrity management reassessment intervals with notice, and expand
integrity assessments outside of high consequence areas to other
populated areas (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines,
2137-AE72). PHMSA is considering issuing a 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--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST)
Proposed Rule Stage
104. +Processing Buy America Waivers Based on Non Availability
(Section 610 Review)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C.
24405(a); 49 U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, div.
L, tit. IV sec. 410; 41 U.S.C. 8301 to 8305; E.O. 13788, Buy American
and Hire American (Apr. 18, 2017)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will establish the applicable regulatory
standard for waivers from the Buy America requirement on the basis that
a product or item is not manufactured in the United States meeting the
applicable Buy America requirement. This standard will require the use
of items and products with the maximum known amount of domestic
content. The rule will also establish the required information the
applicants must provide in applying for such waivers.
Statement of Need: Pursuant to Executive Order 13788-Buy American
and Hire American, which establishes as a policy of the executive
branch to ``maximize, consistent with law . . . the use of goods,
products, and materials produced in the United States,'' DOT will be
requiring that applicants for non-availability waivers select products
that maximize domestic content. In addition, this rule will streamline
the Buy America non-availability waiver process, and improve
coordination across the Department of Transportation.
Summary of Legal Basis: 23 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C.
24405(a); 49 U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, div.
L, tit. IV 410; 41 U.S.C. 83018305; Executive Order 13788, Buy American
and Hire American (Apr. 18, 2017).
Alternatives: TBD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: TBD.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Analiese Marchesseault, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone:
202 366-1675, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2105-AE79
DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Final Rule Stage
105. +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 to 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 rulemaking would provide an alternative, streamlined
and simple, web-based aircraft registration process for the
registration of small unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned
aircraft operated as model aircraft, to facilitate compliance with the
statutory requirement that all aircraft register prior to operation. It
would also provide a simpler method for marking small unmanned aircraft
that is more appropriate for these aircraft. This action responds to
public comments received regarding the proposed registration process in
the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft notice of
proposed rulemaking, the request for information regarding unmanned
aircraft system registration, and the recommendations from the Unmanned
Aircraft System Registration Task Force.
Statement of Need: This interim final rule (IFR) provides an
alternative
[[Page 57916]]
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 the 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 7 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 7 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 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.......................... 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ave. SW, Washington, DC
20591, Phone: 202-267-7776, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2120-AK82
DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)
Prerule Stage
106. +Removing Regulatory Barriers for Automated Driving Systems
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This notice seeks comment on existing motor vehicle
regulatory
[[Page 57917]]
barriers to the introduction and certification of automated driving
systems. NHTSA is developing the appropriate analysis of requirements
that are necessary to maintain existing levels of safety while enabling
innovative vehicle designs and removing or modifying those requirements
that would no longer be appropriate if a human driver will not be
operating the vehicle. NHTSA previously published a Federal Register
notice requesting public comment on January 18, 2018.
Statement of Need: This notice seeks comment on existing motor
vehicle regulatory barriers to the introduction and certification of
automated driving systems.
Summary of Legal Basis: Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Alternatives: NHTSA will seek regulatory alternatives in the
upcoming proposal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: NHTSA will seek cost and benefit
estimates in the upcoming proposal.
Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 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: David Hines, General Engineer Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-2720, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2127-AM00.
DOT--NHTSA
Proposed Rule Stage
107. +The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (Safe) Vehicles Rule for
Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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: The Department of Transportation's National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule to adjust the corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for
model years (MYs) 2021 through 2026 light-duty vehicles. EPA
established national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act
that extend through 2025, and NHTSA established augural CAFE standards
for MY 2022-2025 vehicles under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). This
joint rulemaking proposes adjustments to those standards, following
conclusion of the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) process and EPA's Final
Determination that it is appropriate to adjust the MY 2022-2025 GHG
emission standards.
Statement of Need: Setting Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards
for passenger cars, light trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles
will reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. energy
independence and energy 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 responds 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: See the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the discussion of alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: See the accompanying Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the discussion of estimated costs and benefits.
Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this
rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/24/18 83 FR 42986
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 09/26/18 83 FR 48578
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/23/18 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 10/26/18 .......................
Analyzing Comments.................. 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL For More Information: 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 Ave SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-493-0515, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2127-AL76
DOT--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)
Final Rule Stage
108. +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 train sets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 to
160 mph the maximum
[[Page 57918]]
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 train sets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 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 train sets are the European
and Japanese industry standards. However, as neither of those standards
adequately address the safety concerns presented in the U.S. rail
environment, FRA rejected adopting either of them as a regulatory
alternative suitable for interoperable equipment.
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% discount rate, and between
$1.94 and $1.96 billion at a 7% discount rate. The annualized costs
were estimated to be $64.6 to 65.1 million at a 7% discount rate and
$101.9 to 102.6 million at a 3% 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% discount rate, and between $3.85 and
$7.06 billion at a 7% discount rate. The annualized benefits were
estimated to be $121.8 to 235.8 million at a 7% discount rate and $192
to 371.7 million at a 3% 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
train sets 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 train sets would still require waivers for operation (same
regulatory uncertainty as for Tier III).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/06/16 81 FR 88006
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/06/17 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ave. SE, Washington,
DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-4000, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2130-AC46
DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)
Prerule Stage
109. +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.
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 titled ``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 determine whether the performance on
integrity management measures, or other safety 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
[[Page 57919]]
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. 60101 et seq.).
Alternatives: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will identify possible
alternatives to the current class location requirements, specifically
those requirements causing operators to 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 the
industry, could include the performance of integrity management
measures on affected pipelines.
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: PHMSA is evaluating 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
certain 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............................... 07/31/18 83 FR 36861
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/01/18 .......................
NPRM................................ 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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-AF29
DOT--PHMSA
Proposed Rule Stage
110. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported by Aircraft
Priority: Other Significant.
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 action would amend the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 to 180) applicable to the
transport of lithium cells and batteries by aircraft. The rulemaking
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). The amendments in this rulemaking do not restrict
passengers or crew members from bringing personal items or electronic
devices containing lithium batteries aboard aircraft in carry-on or
checked baggage, or restrict cargo-only aircraft from transporting
lithium ion batteries at a state of charge exceeding 30 percent when
packed with or contained in equipment. PHMSA is providing limited
relief from the passenger aircraft prohibition and the state of charge
restriction for small lithium ion batteries transported entirely within
Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories.
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 rulemaking 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: PHMSA estimates the present value
costs about $46.6 million over 10 years and about $6.6 million
annualized at a 7 percent discount rate and $56.3 million over 10 years
and about $6.6 million annualized at a 3 percent discount rate. Based
on the estimated mean 10-year undiscounted cost of $65.84 million and
the estimated economic consequences of $34.9 million for a cargo-only
flight incident, the rulemaking would need to prevent 1.9 incidents
over the next 10 years for the benefits to exceed the quantified costs,
or approximately one every 5 years.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 57920]]
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
DOT--PHMSA
Final Rule Stage
111. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
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, and ensuring
that operators are increasing the detection and remediation of unsafe
conditions, and mitigating the adverse effects of hazardous liquid
pipeline failures.
Statement of Need: 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., the 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) extend certain reporting requirements to all hazardous
liquid gathering lines; (3) require inspections of pipelines in areas
affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, and other similar
events; (4) require periodic assessments of 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, and 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.......................... 12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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-AE66
DOT--PHMSA
112. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, MAOP
Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements and Other Related
Amendments
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 the testing and pressure reconfirmation of
certain previously untested gas transmission pipelines and certain gas
transmission pipelines with inadequate records, require operators
incorporate seismicity into their risk analysis and data integration,
require the reporting of maximum allowable operating pressure
exceedances, allow a 6-month extension of integrity management
reassessment intervals with notice, and expand integrity assessments
outside of high consequence areas to other populated areas.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking is in direct response to
Congressional mandates in the 2011 Pipeline reauthorization act,
specifically; section 4(e) (Gas IM plus 6 months), section 5 (IM), 8
(leak detection), 23(b)(2)(exceedance of MAOP); and section 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., the 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.
[[Page 57921]]
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
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.......................... 03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Robert Jagger, Technical Writer, Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-4595,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2137-AE72
DOT--PHMSA
113. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (FAST Act)
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. 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
Recommended 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: This rulemaking analyzes five alternative proposals,
including no change and changing the applicability threshold to analyze
the impact to affected entities. Under the no change alternative, PHMSA
would not proceed with any rulemaking on this subject and the current
regulatory standards would remain in effect.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the rulemaking, PHMSA performed a
breakeven analysis by identifying the number of gallons of oil that the
rulemaking would need to prevent from being spilled in order for its
benefits to at least equal its estimated costs. Additional benefits may
also be conferred due to ecological and human health improvements that
may not be captured in the value of the avoided cost of spilled oil.
PHMSA currently estimates the rulemaking will be cost-effective if the
requirements reduce the consequences of oil spills by 7.68% with ten
year costs estimated at $25.2 million and annualized costs of $3.6
million (using a 7% discount rate).
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.......................... 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Glen Foster, Transportation Specialist, Department
of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
[[Page 57922]]
SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8553, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2137-AE91, Related to 2137-AF07
RIN: 2137-AF08
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The primary mission of the Department of the Treasury is to
maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by
promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at
home and abroad, strengthen national security by combatting threats and
protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S.
Government's finances and resources effectively.
Consistent with this mission, 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.
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
(3) Prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and
tobacco products.
In FY 2019, 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 in connection with permit applications and to
expand industry flexibility with regard to alcohol beverage container
sizes (standards of fill). 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 2019 are expected to be ``regulatory actions'' under Executive
Order 13771 and subsequent OMB guidance.
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. In FY 2018, TTB worked to remove
requirements where possible without the need for rulemaking. This
included the elimination of certain information collected on TTB
permit-related forms. In FY 2019, TTB intends to propose amending its
regulations to eliminate or streamline various additional requirements
for application or qualification of distilled spirits plants, wineries,
breweries, and manufacturers of tobacco products or processed tobacco.
In addition, through these regulatory amendments, TTB intends to
address a number of comments it received 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).
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.) If implemented, this proposal would provide industry
members greater flexibility in producing and sourcing containers and
meeting consumer demand. This deregulatory action would also eliminate
restrictions that inhibit competition and the movement of goods in
domestic and international commerce.
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
[[Page 57923]]
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.
Revisions to the Regulations to Reflect Statutory Changes
to the Definition of Hard Cider under the Internal Revenue Code (RIN:
1513-AC31). (Not yet determined)
The PATH Act also contained changes to the Internal Revenue Code
amending the definition of hard cider for excise tax classification
purposes. The amended definition broadened the range of products to
which the hard cider tax rate applies. In FY 2017, TTB published a
temporary rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions.
At the same time, TTB published in the Federal Register (82 FR 7753) a
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comments on the amendments
made in the temporary rule, including labeling requirements to identify
products to which the hard cider tax rate applies. In 2018, TTB
reopened the comment period for the notice, as requested by industry
members and, after consideration of the comments, intends to issue a
final rule in FY 2019.
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
marketplace. As a result of this review, and further review in FY 2017
and FY 2018 consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 regarding
reducing regulatory burdens, in FY 2019, 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 2019, 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 and reopened for public comment in FY 2018:
Proposal to Amend the Regulations to Authorize the Use of
Additional Wine Treating Materials (RIN: 1513-AB61). (Not yet
determined)
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 facilitates the
acceptance of exported wine made using those treatments in foreign
markets. In FY 2018 TTB reopened the comment period for the notice, as
requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments,
intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.
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. In 2018, TTB reopened the comment period for the
notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of
the comments, intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.
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 2019, 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.
Modernized Drawback. (Economically significant)
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
[[Page 57924]]
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 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:
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. FinCEN is considering public comments and preparing a
Final Rule.
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. FinCEN is
considering public comments and preparing a Final Rule.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks
Lacking a Federal Functional Regulator. (Not yet determined)
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. FinCEN is considering public comments and
preparing a Final Rule.
Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for
Investment Advisers. (Regulatory)
On September 1, 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.
Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Persons
Involved in Real Estate Closings and Settlements. (Regulatory)
FinCEN intends to issue an ANPRM to initiate a rulemaking that
would establish BSA requirements for ``persons involved in real estate
closings and settlements,'' 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(U). The new rules may
cover various types of businesses and professions involved in real
estate transactions, including real estate agents and brokers,
settlement attorneys, and title companies. The data from a series of
geographical targeting orders issued by FinCEN is being evaluated to
support this rulemaking to address money laundering through real estate
transactions, especially acquisitions made via currency transmittals.
Real estate transactions involving mortgages are already covered by BSA
rules for banks and FinCEN rules for residential mortgage lenders and
originators.
Registration Requirements of Money Services Businesses.
(Regulatory)
FinCEN is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
amending the registration requirements for money services businesses.
Reporting of Cross-Border Electronic Transmittals of
Funds. (Regulatory)
FinCEN is considering requiring certain depository institutions and
money services businesses (MSBs) to affirmatively provide records to
FinCEN of certain cross-border electronic transmittals of funds
(CBETF). Current regulations already require that these financial
institutions maintain and make available, but not affirmatively
[[Page 57925]]
report, essentially the same CBETF information. FinCEN issued this
proposal to meet the requirements of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).
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.
VI. Internal Revenue Service
During fiscal year 2019, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax
Policy have the following regulatory priorities. The first priority is
to provide guidance regarding initial implementation of key provisions
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), Public Law 115-97. Initial
implementation priorities include:
Guidance under sections 101 and 1016 and new section 6050Y
regarding reportable policy sales of life insurance contracts.
Guidance under section 162(f) and new section 6050X.
Computational, definitional, and other guidance under new
section 163(j).
Guidance on new section 168(k).
Computational, definitional, and anti-avoidance guidance
under new section 199A.
Definitional and other guidance under new section 451(b)
and (c).
Guidance on computation of unrelated business taxable
income for separate trades or businesses under new section 512(a)(6).
Guidance implementing changes to section 529.
Guidance implementing new section 965 and other
international sections of the TCJA.
Guidance implementing changes to section 1361 regarding
electing small business trusts.
Guidance regarding Opportunity Zones under sections 1400Z-
1 and 1400Z-2.
Guidance under new section 1446(f) for dispositions of
certain partnership interests.
Guidance on computation of estate and gift taxes to
reflect changes in the basic exclusion amount.
Guidance regarding withholding under sections 3402 and
3405 and optional flat rate withholding.
Guidance on certain issues relating to the excise tax on
excess remuneration paid by ``applicable tax-exempt organizations''
under section 4960.
Guidance regarding new section 1061.
Guidance regarding new section 6695(g).
In addition, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy will
continue to pursue the 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. The
remaining deregulatory actions include:
1. Finalize amendment of regulations under section 7602 regarding
the participation of attorneys described in section 6103(n) in a
summons interview. Proposed amendments were published on March 28,
2018.
2. Finalize removal of temporary regulations under section 707
concerning treatment of liabilities for disguised sale purposes.
Proposed regulations that proposed the removal of the temporary
regulations under section 707 and the reinstatement of the prior
section 707 regulations were published on June 19, 2018.
3. Proposed removal of documentation regulations under section 385
and review of other regulations under section 385. A notice delaying
the application of the documentation regulations was published on
August 14, 2017.
4. Proposed modification of regulations under section 367 regarding
the treatment of certain transfers of property to foreign corporations.
5. Proposed modification of regulations under section 337(d)
regarding certain transfers of property to regulated investment
companies (RICs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
6. Proposed modification of regulations under section 987 on income
and currency gain or loss with respect to a section 987 qualified
business unit.
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 increase the usability of health reimbursement
arrangements.
Finally, it is a priority of the IRS to publish 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. Final regulations regarding the
election out of the centralized partnership audit regime were published
January 2, 2018. Final regulations regarding the partnership
representative and the election to apply the centralized partnership
audit regime were published August 9, 2018. Proposed regulations
implementing the centralized partnership audit regime were published
August 17, 2018.
V. 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 2019, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to
the following regulatory projects:
Management of Federal Agency Receipts. (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
[[Page 57926]]
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.
Amendment of Electronic Payment Regulation. (Deregulatory)
The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its electronic payment
regulation at 31 CFR part 208. The amendment would eliminate obsolete
references in the rule, including references to the Electronic Transfer
Account (ETA\sm\). In addition, the proposed rule would provide for the
disbursement of non-benefit payments through Treasury-sponsored
accounts, such as the U.S. Debit Card.
Government Participation in the Automated Clearing House.
(Not yet determined)
The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its regulation at 31 CFR
part 210 governing the government's participation in the Automated
Clearing House (ACH). The proposed amendment would address changes to
the National Automated Clearing House Association's (NACHA) private-
sector ACH rules since those rules were last incorporated by reference
in Part 210. Among other things, the amendment would address the
expansion of Same-Day ACH.
VI. 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 2019 include the following
regulatory actions, which include rules implementing various provisions
of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
(Pub. L. 115-174) (EGRRCPA):
Capital Simplification (12 CFR part 3).
The banking agencies \2\ are planning to issue rulemakings 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. These rulemakings will incorporate the new requirements set
forth in section 201 of EGRRCPA, the community bank leverage ratio, and
section 214 of EGRRCPA, requiring a revised approach to defining which
acquisition, development, and construction loans should be deemed high
volatility commercial real estate exposures. A notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing various capital simplifications was issued on
October 27, 2017, 82 FR 49984. A notice of proposed rulemaking
concerning high volatility commercial real estate exposures was
published on September 28, 2018, 83 FR 48990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (FRB), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital: Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit
Risk (12 CFR part 3).
The banking agencies are planning to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking to implement a risk sensitive approach to counterparty
credit risk using a risk adjusted notational amount of derivatives,
allowing for better recognition of netting, and distinguishing margined
trades from un-margined trades.
Reforming the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Regulatory
Framework (12 CFR parts 25 and 195).
The OCC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting
forth a new approach to CRA to bring clarity, transparency,
flexibility, and less burden for regulated financial institutions and
consumers. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
September 5, 2018, 83 FR 45053.
Employment Contracts (12 CFR part 163).
The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 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.
Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards (SLR) for Bank
Holding Companies and Subsidiary Insured Depository Institutions (12
CFR part 3).
The OCC and FRB issued a proposed rule that would modify the
enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for U.S. top-tier bank
holding companies identified as global systemically important bank
holding companies, or GSIBs, and certain of their insured depository
institution subsidiaries. In light of section 402 of EGRRCPA, which
requires the Federal banking agencies to propose changes to the
supplementary leverage ratio denominator for custody banks, the
agencies intend to publish a new rulemaking to implement section 402.
The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on April 19, 2018, 83
FR 17317.
Exception from Appraisals of Real Property Located in
Rural Areas (12 CFR part 34).
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
to implement section 103 of EGRRCPA. Section 103 amended Title XI of
the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
to exclude loans made by a financial institution from the requirement
to obtain a Title XI appraisal if certain conditions are met.
Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured
Depository Institutions (12 CFR part 4).
To implement section 210 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an
interim final rule expanding the 18-month examination schedule to
qualifying well-capitalized and well-managed institutions with less
than $3 billion in total assets. The interim final rule was published
on August 29, 2018, 83 FR 43961.
Heightened Capital Requirements for Investments in Long-
Term Debt Instruments Issued by Global Systemically Important Bank
Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies (12 CFR part 3).
The banking agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that
would specify capital requirements applicable to an advanced approaches
banking organization that invests in long-term debt instruments issued
pursuant to the FRB's total loss absorbing capacity regulations, either
by a bank holding company or an intermediate holding company.
Implementation of the Current Expected Credit Losses
Standard for Allowances and Related Adjustments (12 CFR parts 1, 3, 5,
23, 24, 32, 34, and 46).
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to reflect the
upcoming adoption by banking organizations of FASB's Accounting
Standards Update 2016-13, which introduces the current expected credit
losses methodology (CECL) for estimating allowances for credit losses.
The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on May 14, 2018, 83 FR
22312.
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, National Credit Union
[[Page 57927]]
Administration (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 notice of proposed
rulemaking was published on June 10, 2016, 81 FR 37669.
Liquidity Coverage Ratio Rule: Treatment of Certain
Municipal Obligations as Level 2B High-Quality Liquid Assets (12 CFR
part 50).
To implement section 403 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an
interim final rule that would add investment-grade municipal
obligations to the list of permitted assets for high-quality liquid
assets (HQLA), as defined in the agencies' Liquidity Coverage Ratio
(LCR) rules. The interim final rule was published on August 31, 2018,
83 FR 44451.
Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood
Insurance (12 CFR part 22).
The banking agencies, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the
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 notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
Management Official Interlocks Asset Thresholds (12 CFR
part 26).
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
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.
Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities
(12 CFR part 45).
The banking agencies, FHFA, and FCA issued a final rule to amend
the minimum margin requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap
participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based
swap participants for which one of the agencies is the prudential
regulator (Swap Margin Rule). The notice of proposed rulemaking was
issued on February 21, 2018, 83 FR 7413, requesting comment on the
agencies' plan to revise one definition in the current rule to match
the definition used for the same purpose in the agencies' capital
regulations. The final rule was published on October 10, 2018, 83 FR
50805.
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 notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
Other Real Estate Owned (12 CFR part 34).
The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on other
real estate owned (OREO). The proposed rule would update and clarify
provisions relating to OREO for national banks and establish a
framework to assist Federal savings associations with managing and
disposing of OREO in a safe and sound manner.
Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on
Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With,
Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds (12 CFR part 44).
The banking agencies are planning to issue a final rule that would
amend the regulations implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding
Company Act. Section 13 contains certain restrictions on the ability of
banking entities to engage in proprietary trading and acquire or retain
certain interests in, or enter into certain relationships with, a hedge
fund or private equity fund. The amendments are intended to provide
banking entities with clarity about what activities are prohibited and
to improve supervision and implementation of section 13.
The banking agencies intend to address sections 203 and 204 of
EGRRCPA through a separate rulemaking process.
Pursuant to section 203 of EGRRCPA, OCC-supervised institutions
with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less are not ``banking
entities'' within the scope of section 13 of the BHCA, if their trading
assets and trading liabilities do not exceed 5 percent of their total
consolidated assets, and they are not controlled by a company that has
total consolidated assets over $10 billion or total trading assets and
trading liabilities that exceed 5 percent of total consolidated assets.
In addition, section 204 of EGRRCPA revises the statutory provisions
related to the naming of covered funds. The notice of proposed
rulemaking was issued on July 17, 2018, 83 FR 33432.
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.
Rules of Practice and Procedure (12 CFR part 19).
The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to amend their
rules of practice and procedure to reflect modern filing and
communication methods and improve or clarify other procedures.
Short-Form Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income
(12 CFR part 3).
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
to provide criteria for banks and savings associations eligible to file
a short-form report in the first and second quarters pursuant to
section 205 of the EGRRCPA.
Stress Testing (12 CFR part 46).
The OCC is planning to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend the annual stress test rule for national banks and Federal
savings associations (FSAs) required under section 165(i) of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203,
July 21, 2010) (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)) (Dodd-Frank Act). These changes are
required by section 401 of the EGRRCPA, which amended the Dodd-Frank
Act to raise the threshold for national banks and FSAs subject to DFAST
from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, reduce
the number of stress test scenarios, and revise the annual stress test
requirement to a periodic requirement.
Covered Savings Associations (12 CFR part 101).
The OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section
206 of the EGRRCPA, which adds a new section 5A of the Home Owners'
Loan
[[Page 57928]]
Act. Section 5A allows Federal savings associations with assets of $20
billion or less to elect to operate as ``covered savings
associations.'' Covered savings associations operate with the same
rights and are subject to the same restrictions as a national bank in
the same location. As required by section 5A, the NPRM will propose
standards and procedures for making the election. It will also address
nonconforming assets and clarify requirements for the treatment of
covered savings associations. The notice of proposed rulemaking was
published on September 18, 2018, 83 FR 47101.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit
programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who
served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely
confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress
relating to programs for veterans and their families. VA's major
regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice,
and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three
VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans
Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The
primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide
high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and
their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful
Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
VA's regulatory priority plan consists of five high priority
regulations with statutory deadlines. Four of the five are Veterans
Health Administration (VHA) regulations and the fifth one is a Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) Loan Guaranty regulation.
Three of the VHA regulations intend to codify the VA Mission Act of
2018, in accordance with section 101, 102 and 105 of Public Law 115-182
(hereafter referred to as the ``Mission Act''). VA is required to
implement the Veterans Community Care Program by June 6, 2019, under
which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans through non-VA
providers in the community. Under the Mission Act VA is also required
to establish procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access
walk-in care from certain community providers by June 6, 2019.
The other VHA regulation intends to implement provisions from the
Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Public Law
115-55. This act allows VA to revise and enhance VA's rules for
processing claims and appeals and is effective February 19, 2019.
The remaining VBA regulation is required to promulgate regulations
governing cash-out home loans in accordance with the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act by November 20, 2018.
This rule defines the parameters of when VA will permit cash-out home
loans, to include defining net tangible benefit, recoupment, and
seasoning requirements.
VA
Proposed Rule Stage
114. Veterans Community Walk-In Care
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1725A; Pub. L. 115-182, sec. 105
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4200; 38 CFR 17.4225; . . .
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2018, Public Law 115-182,
section 105.
By June 6, 2019, VA is required to develop procedures to ensure
eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care from certain
community providers.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement
section 105 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the
``Mission Act''), to establish procedures to ensure eligible Veterans
are able to access walk-in care from certain community providers by
June 6, 2019.
Statement of Need: By June 6, 2019, VA is required to develop
procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care
from certain community providers.
Summary of Legal Basis: Pub. L. 115-182, section 105.
Alternatives: If VA does not add these new regulations, it will not
be able to implement the required Community Walk-in Care Program by the
statutory deadline of June 6, 2019. VA would risk not meeting the
statutory deadline, and Veterans would not be able to receive walk-in
care as required by law.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD
Risks:
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/19 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Andrea Sperr, Regulation Specialist, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 461-6725, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ47
VA
Final Rule Stage
115. Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (The Act), Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Public Law 115-174, sec. 309; 38 U.S.C. 3703 and
3710
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 20, 2018.
This law has a statutory deadline and requires the SECVA to publish
a regulation in the Federal Register not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this law.
Abstract: The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act requires VA to promulgate regulations governing cash-out
home loans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its
rules on VA-guaranteed or insured cash-out home loans. The This rule
defines the parameters of VA cash-out home
[[Page 57929]]
loans, to include defining net tangible benefits, recoupment, and
seasoning requirements.
Statement of Need: Section 309 of this law, the SECVA shall
promulgate a Loan Guarantee rulemaking (regulation) to ensure that such
refinancing is in the financial interest of the borrower, including
rules relating to recoupment, seasoning, and net tangible benefits.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115-174, sec. 309 requires VA to
publish these regulations.
Alternatives: Section 309 of this law requires that SECVA shall
promulgate a Loan Guarantee rulemaking (regulation) to ensure that such
refinancing is in the financial interest of the borrower, including
rules relating to recoupment, seasoning, and net tangible benefits.
There are no other alternatives to promulgate such regulation. However,
VA did consider alternatives when developing new cash-out refinance
policies, the guaranty and insurance of Type I and Type II case outs
and different alternatives for establishing provisions regarding
seasoning, recoupment and interest rate reduction that apply to Type I
Cash-Outs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA's Office of Financial Management
(OFM) scored the rulemaking as a loss in funding revenue of $33.1
million in FY2019 and $91.3 million over a three-year period (FY2019
through FY2021), using the 2019 President's budget (PB) baseline. There
are no FTE or GOE costs associated with this rulemaking. The impact is
due to reduced funding fees generated related to the decrease in total
cash-out refinance loan amount.
Risks: If VA decided not to regulate, mortgage lenders may seek to
find loopholes in the Act and continue to aggressively market and offer
refinance loans to veterans that may not be in their financial
interest. This regulation is necessary to inform all parties of the
requirements to originate future loans for VA loan guaranty. It is
urgent and compelling to issue this rule to provide clarity so that
market disruption is minimized. While VA is required to issue this rule
by statute, by not promulgating a rule industry uncertainty may lead to
less access to mortgage capital for veterans.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Greg Nelms, Supervisor, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 632-
8978, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ42
VA
116. Veterans Health Administration Benefits Claims, Appeals,
and Due Process
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Public Law 115-55; 38 U.S.C. 501(a); 38 U.S.C.
501, 1721 and 7105
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.132; 38 CFR 17.133; . . .
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, February 14, 2019, IFR to be
published in time to coincide with effective date of law.
Public Law 115-55, section 2(x), provides generally that the new
review system will apply to all claims for which a notice of decision
is provided by the agency of original jurisdiction on or after the
later of (a) 540 days from the date of enactment, which falls on
February 14, 2019, or (b) 30 days after the date on which the Secretary
certifies to Congress that VA is ready to carry out the new appeals
system.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revises its
regulations concerning its claims and appeals process governing various
programs administrated by the Veterans Health Administration. In
preparation for the launch of modernized claims and appeals processes
mandated by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of
2017, VA has reviewed the regulations governing various programs
administered by its Veterans Health Administration and determined that
certain sections are inconsistent with statutory requirements. This
rulemaking amends those sections to ensure that they are no longer
inconsistent with requirements contained in the law.
Statement of Need: The Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2017, Public Law 115-55, overhauled VA's rules for
processing claims and appeals, effective February 19, 2019. To
successfully implement changes in the context of healthcare benefits
administered by VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA), VA must make
minor revisions to multiple sections of title 38 regulations applicable
to healthcare benefits and appeals processing, and VA must enact
delimiting dates to end certain processes, such as claim
reconsideration, that are no longer permissible under the revised law.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115-55 requires VA to publish
the regulations to coincide with the effective date of this law.
Alternatives: VA initially determined that a subsequent regulation
to VA's 2900-AQ26 regulation was not necessary, because VHA adopted
VBA's part 3 procedural rules some time ago through our own internal
guidance, and those rules remain in effect until we publish rulemaking
to the contrary. In practical terms, this means that in the absence of
VHA-specific Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) notice and comment
rulemaking, applicable provisions of 2900-AQ26, and other 38 CFR part 3
processes apply to VHA as they do to VBA. However, VA intends to
publish this rulemaking to provide additional regulatory clarity.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: If VA does not make minor revisions and add necessary
delimiting dates, there is a risk that the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims, which reviews VA benefit appeals, could determine that
healthcare claimants have rights that are inconsistent with
(essentially in addition to) revised statutory authorities. This would
place VHA claimants in the enviable position of enjoying rights that do
not extend to claimants whose benefits are administered by VA's other
administrations Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and National
Cemetery Administration (NCA) and other adjudication activities, such
as VA's Office of General Counsel (OGC).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/19 .......................
Final Rule Effective................ 02/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Ethan Kalett, Director, VHA Regulations, Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 675Q, Washington, DC
20420, Phone: 202 461-7633, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ44
[[Page 57930]]
VA
117. Veterans Care Agreements
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1703A; Public Law 115-182, sec. 102
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4100; 38 CFR 17.4150; . . .
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2019, Public Law 115-182,
section 102.
VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program
under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019. By June 6, 2019, VA's current
ability to use provider agreements and individual authorizations to
purchase community care will also lapse. The procurement agreements
established in this interim final rule, and authorized by 38 U.S.C.
1703A, are required to implement the program required under 38 U.S.C.
1703.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement
section 102 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the
``Mission Act''), to establish the use of Veterans Care Agreements
(VCAs) to procure care in the community for eligible Veterans.
Statement of Need: In accordance with section 101 of the Mission
Act, VA is required to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by
June 6, 2019, under which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans
through non-VA providers in the community. Also under the Mission Act,
the current Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will
lapse on June 6, 2019, as will two of VA's current methods of procuring
community care (Veterans Choice Program provider agreements, and
individual authorizations). The VCAs under section 102 of the Mission
Act will essentially replace these two current methods of VA
procurement of community care, and the VCAs are required to be in place
six months prior to implementation of the Veterans Community Care
Program to provide lead time for VA to establish new procurement
relationships with community providers.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115182, section 102 requires VA
to establish the permanent Community Care program under 38 U.S.C. 1703
by June 6, 2019. The procurement agreements established in this interim
final rule, and authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1703A, are required to
implement the program required under 38 U.S.C. 1703.
Alternatives: TBD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: If VA does not publish new regulations, it will not be able
to implement the required Veterans Community Care Program and legally
procure care for our Nations Veterans, which is a tremendous health and
safety risk.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 05/00/19 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/00/19 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Ethan Kalett, Director, VHA Regulations, Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 675Q, Washington, DC
20420, Phone: 202 461-7633, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ45
VA
118. Veterans Community Care Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1703; Public Law 115-182, sec. 101
CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4000; . . .
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2019, Public Law 115-182,
section 101.
VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program
under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019.
Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement
section 101 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the
``Mission Act''), to establish the Veterans Community Care Program by
June 6, 2019, under which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans
through non-VA providers in the community. Also under the Mission Act,
the current Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will
lapse on June 6, 2019. To ensure this transition to the new Veterans
Community Care Program occurs without a significant disruption in
Veterans' care, implementation must occur through an interim final rule
to establish criteria for receipt of care or services upon VA's
authorization and the election of eligible veterans, primarily: (1)
Whether VA offers the care or service required; (2) whether VA operates
a full-service medical facility in the State in which the Veteran
resides; (3) whether the Veteran meets certain conditions related to
eligibility under the 40 mile criterion in the Veterans Choice Program;
(4) whether VA is able to furnish care or services in a manner that
complies with designated access standards developed by the Secretary;
and (5) whether the Veteran and the Veteran's referring clinician agree
that furnishing care and services through a community entity or
provider is in the best medical interest of the Veteran based upon
criteria developed by VA. This interim final rule will also establish
criteria by which covered Veterans could receive care if VA determined
a medical services line was not meeting VA's standards for quality,
with certain limitations. An interim final rule is necessary because VA
requires additional time to develop the policy decisions necessary to
interpret the legal criteria stated above (e.g., interpreting or
defining the phrase does not offer the care or services, defining a
full service medical facility, and developing the required access and
quality standards), to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by
June 6, 2019.
Statement of Need: An interim final rule is necessary because VA
requires additional time to develop the policy decisions necessary to
interpret the legal criteria stated above (e.g., interpreting or
defining the phrase does not offer the care or services, defining a
full service medical facility, and developing the required access and
quality standards), to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by
June 6, 2019. Also under the Mission Act, the current Veterans Choice
Program to provide community care will lapse on June 6, 2019. To ensure
this transition to the new Veterans Community Care Program occurs
without a significant disruption in Veterans' care, implementation must
occur through an interim final rule to establish criteria for receipt
of care or services upon VA's authorization and the election of
eligible veterans.
Summary of Legal Basis: Implement section 101 of Public Law 115-182
(hereafter referred to as the Mission Act).
Alternatives: TBD.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
Risks: The Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will
lapse on June 6, 2019. If VA does not publish new regulations, it will
not be able to implement the required Veterans
[[Page 57931]]
Community Care Program, which would significantly disrupt Veterans'
healthcare. More specifically, specialty care for veterans with chronic
illnesses would not be readily available, critical maternity services
would not be available and emergency care services would be negatively
impacted and overwhelmed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 05/00/19 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/00/19 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Andrea Sperr, Regulation Specialist, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone:
202 461-6725, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2900-AQ46
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 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
The 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. Our nation has made great progress in making
rivers and lakes safer for swimming and boating, reducing the smog that
clouded city skies, cleaning up lands that were once used as hidden
chemical dumps and providing Americans greater access to information on
chemical safety. To achieve continued positive environmental results,
we must foster and maintain a sense of shared accountability between
states, tribes and the federal government. 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 the EPA's upcoming
regulatory actions.
Improve Air Quality
As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment,
the EPA is dedicated to improving the quality of the nation's air. From
1970 to 2017, aggregate national emissions of the six criteria air
pollutants were reduced over 70 percent, while gross domestic product
grew by over 260 percent. The EPA's work to control emissions of air
pollutants is critical to continued progress in reducing public health
risks and improving the quality of the environment. The Agency will
continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and
warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA will work with States and
tribes to accurately measure air quality and ensure that more Americans
are living and working in areas that meet air quality standards. The
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 has
proposed an alternative approach that is appropriately grounded in the
EPA's statutory authority and consistent with the rule of law. This
alternative approach would appropriately promote cooperative federalism
and respect the authority and powers that are reserved to the States;
promote the Administration's dual goals of protecting public health and
the environment, while also supporting economic growth and job
creation; and appropriately maintain the diversity of reliable energy
resources and encourage the production of domestic energy sources to
achieve energy independence and security.
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule. On August 1, 2018,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to amend certain
existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish
new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. The proposed
rule published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2018 (83 FR
42986), and the EPA docket is currently open for submittal of public
comments. NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on this
proposal, which were announced in a supplemental Federal Register
notice also published on August 24, 2018 (83 FR 42817).
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
[[Page 57932]]
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 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.
In accordance with the President's goal to streamline permitting
regulations for manufacturing facilities, the EPA has initiated an
effort to issue a series of targeted improvements, including guidance
memos and, as necessary, associated rulemakings, to simplify the New
Source Review (NSR) process in manner consistent with the Clean Air
Act.
We have recently highlighted flexibilities in the implementation of
NSR regulations available to manufacturing facilities for the
permitting of new projects. Two recent memos, for example, clarified
that project emissions accounting can take place in the first step of
the NSR applicability process for all project categories and that the
EPA will not ``second guess'' preconstruction analysis that complies
with procedural requirements. In FY19, the EPA intends to follow-up
these memos with rulemaking to codify these policies. Based on the
recommendations of a number of state environmental agencies as well as
small businesses under the air toxics program, the EPA has also
rescinded its ``once-in, always-in'' policy. A major source which takes
enforceable limitations on its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions below the applicable thresholds becomes an
area source (strike ``,'') and is no longer subject to maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, no matter when the
source may choose to take measures to limit its PTE. In early 2019, EPA
anticipates that it will publish a Federal Register notice to take
comment on adding regulatory text to reflect EPA's plain language
reading of the statute.
Oil and Gas. The EPA is reviewing the Agency's Oil and Gas New
Source Performance Standards. In June 2017, the EPA granted
reconsideration of some specific requirements under the 2016 New Source
Performance Standards, and indicated that the Agency would also look
broadly at the entire rule, including the regulation of greenhouse
gases through an emission limitation on methane. The EPA is issuing a
proposal for public review and comment in the fall of 2018.
Provide for Clean and Safe Water
The nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our communities,
supporting our economy and way of life. Across the country we depend
upon reliable sources of clean and safe water. Just a few decades ago,
many of the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries were grossly
polluted, wastewater sources received little or no treatment, and
drinking water systems provided very limited treatment to water coming
through the tap. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 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. The EPA plans to address
the following challenging issues, in part, in rulemakings.
Waters of the U.S. 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' '' (2015 Rule) (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
Executive Order 13778, ``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. The agencies have
determined to address the Executive Order in a comprehensive two-step
process. On July 27, 2017, the agencies published a Federal Register
notice proposing to repeal (Step 1) the 2015 Rule and recodify the pre-
existing regulations; the initial 30-day comment period was extended an
additional 30 days to September 28, 2017. The agencies signed a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on June 29, 2018 clarifying
and seeking additional comment on the Step 1 proposal.
In Step 2 (Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'),
the agencies plan to pursue a public notice-and-comment rulemaking in
which the agencies would conduct a substantive reevaluation of the
definition of ``waters of the United States.'' As part of this
reevaluation, the agencies are considering defining ``navigable
waters'' in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice
Scalia in the Rapanos decision, as instructed by Executive Order 13778.
On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an
applicability date to the 2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide
continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes,
and the public while the agencies conduct Step 2 of the rulemaking.
Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to
implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 Rule
consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed
by applicable agency guidance documents.
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. In early
2017, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of the Steam
Electric ELG rule, one from the Utility Water Act Group and one from
the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. On August 11,
2017, the Administrator announced his decision to conduct a rulemaking
to potentially revise the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for
existing sources in the 2015 rule that apply to bottom ash transport
water and FGD
[[Page 57933]]
wastewater. In light of the reconsideration, the EPA views that it is
appropriate to postpone impending deadlines as a temporary, 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. The EPA expects to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking for the Steam Electric reconsideration in March
2019.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper--
Long Term Revisions. 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 clarify implementation of the rule to strengthen
its public health protections and to make it more effective and more
readily enforceable. The EPA is evaluating the costs and benefits of
the potential revisions and assessing whether the benefits justify the
costs.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Perchlorate.
Perchlorate is an inorganic chemical produced for use in rocket
propellants, fireworks, road flares, and explosives. Perchlorate is
also formed naturally in the environment, particularly in arid
climates, and may be present as an impurity in hypochlorite solutions
(bleach). In February 2011, the EPA announced its decision to regulate
perchlorate under SDWA. The EPA determined that perchlorate meets
SDWA's three criteria for regulating a contaminant: (1) Perchlorate may
have adverse health effects because scientific research indicates that
perchlorate can disrupt the thyroid's ability to produce the hormones
needed for normal growth and development; (2) there is a substantial
likelihood that perchlorate occurs with frequency at levels of health
concern in public water systems because monitoring data show over four
percent of public water systems have detected perchlorate; and (3)
there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction since
between 5.1 and 16.6 million people may be provided with drinking water
containing perchlorate. In 2013, the Science Advisory Board recommended
that the EPA use models, rather than the traditional approach to
establish the health based Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for a
perchlorate regulation. The EPA and FDA scientists worked
collaboratively to develop biological models in accordance with SAB
recommendations. The EPA will utilize the best available peer reviewed
science to inform regulatory decision making for perchlorate.
Peak Flows Management. Wet weather events (e.g., rain, snowmelt)
can impact publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) operations when
excess water enters the wastewater collection system. The increased wet
weather flows can exceed the POTW treatment plant's capacity to provide
the same type of treatment for all of the incoming wastewater. The
treatment plant's secondary treatment units are the most likely to be
adversely affected by wet weather because the biological systems can be
damaged when too much water flows through them. POTWs employ a variety
of operational practices to ensure the integrity of their secondary
treatment units during wet weather, and the EPA plans to propose
updates to the regulations which will seek to clarify permitting
procedures for POTWs with separate sanitary sewer systems under wet
weather operational conditions. The goal of these updates will be to
ensure a consistent national approach for permitting POTWs that
provides for efficient treatment plant operation while protecting the
public from potential adverse health effects of inadequately treated
wastewater.
Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Regulatory Revision. Section 404(c)
of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Administrator ``to prohibit the
specification (including withdrawal of the specification) of any
defined area as a disposal site'' as well as to ``deny or restrict the
use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of
specification) as a disposal site . . . whenever he determines, after
notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such
materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.'' In
June 2018, the EPA announced that it would initiate an update to the
regulations governing the EPA's role in permitting discharges of
dredged or fill material under section 404 of the CWA. The EPA's
current regulations on the implementation of section 404(c) of the CWA
allow the Agency to veto--at any time--a permit issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) or an approved state that allows for the
discharge of dredged or fill material at specified disposal sites. The
goal of this effort would be to increase predictability and regulatory
certainty for landowners, investors, businesses, and other
stakeholders. This rulemaking will consider, at minimum, changes to the
EPA's 404(c) review process that would govern the future use of the
EPA's section 404(c) authority.
Revitalize Land and Prevent Contamination
The EPA works to improve the health and livelihood of all Americans
by cleaning up and returning land to productive use, preventing
contamination, and responding to emergencies. The EPA collaborates with
other federal agencies, industry, states, tribes, and local communities
to enhance the livability and economic vitality of neighborhoods.
Challenging and complex environmental problems persist at many
contaminated properties, including contaminated soil, sediment, surface
water, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns. The EPA's
regulatory program recognizes the progress made in cleaning up and
returning land to productive use, preventing contamination, and
responding to emergencies, and works to incorporate new technologies
and approaches that allow us to provide for an environmentally
sustainable future more efficiently and effectively.
Reconsideration of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations
Under
[[Page 57934]]
Clean Air Act. Both the 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
standard in 1992, and the EPA modeled the Risk Management Program (RMP)
regulation after it. The EPA published the RMP rule in two stages: (1)
A list of regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994, and
(2) the RMP final regulation with risk management requirements in 1996.
Both the OSHA 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.
Prior to the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule, the EPA
received petitions for reconsideration under Clean Air Act Section
307(d)(7)(B). Petitioners sought reconsideration of the RMP Amendments
based on what they view as either EPA's failure to coordinate with OSHA
and DOT as required by paragraph (D) of CAA section 112(r)(7) or at
least inadequate coordination. Furthermore, petitioners indicated that
the arson findings from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and
Explosives regarding the West Fertilizer 2013 explosion undercut EPA's
basis for the proposed rule. Petitioners also raised security concerns
related to sharing information with local emergency planning and
response organizations and concerns about EPA's economic analysis and
the economic burden associated with certain rule provisions. Having
considered the concerns regarding the RMP Amendments rule raised in
these 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 it. On May 30, 2018, the EPA published proposed changes
to the rule and sought public comment on the proposed revisions and
other related issues.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities. Remand Rules. 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 in 2015. As a result of a
settlement agreement on this final rule, 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. Therefore the EPA is
proposing to amend certain performance standards in the CCR rule
through several rulemaking efforts to offer additional flexibility to
state permitting authorities with an approved program. The EPA proposed
the first of these rulemaking efforts, the Phase One rule, in March
2018. The EPA then finalized a small number of the proposed Phase one
rule provisions in the July 2018 Phase One Part One rule.
Designation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances as Hazardous
Substances. On May 22, 2018, the EPA held a two-day National Leadership
Summit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Administrator
announced that the EPA will begin the process to propose designating
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
as ``hazardous substances'' through one of the available statutory
mechanisms, including section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The EPA is currently
evaluating the various statutory mechanisms, such as the. Clean Water
Act Section 307(a) and Section 311. However, the Agency has not yet
made a final decision on which mechanism is most appropriate.
Ensure Safety of Chemicals in the Marketplace
Chemicals and pesticides released into the environment as a result
of their manufacture, processing, use, or disposal can threaten human
health and the environment. The EPA gathers and assesses information
about the risks associated with chemicals and pesticides and acts to
minimize risks and prevent unreasonable risks to individuals, families,
and the environment. The 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). Using best available science, the Agency will
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and
highlights the following efforts underway in FY 2019:
Implementing TSCA Amendments To Enhance Public Health and Chemical
Safety. The amendments to TSCA that were enacted in June 2016 now
require the EPA to evaluate existing chemicals 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, the EPA must then take steps to eliminate
these risks. However, during the risk management phase, EPA must
balance the risk management decision with potential disruption based on
compliance to the national economy, national security, or critical
infrastructure.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA also require the EPA to take expedited
regulatory action without a risk evaluation for persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals from the 2014 update of the
TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that meet a specific set of
criteria. Under the conditions of use for each PBT chemical, the EPA
will characterize likely exposures to humans and the environment; this
information is undergoing peer review and public comment. The exposure
assessments will then be used to develop regulatory actions that
address the risks of injury to health or the environment that the EPA
determines are presented by the chemical substances and that reduce
exposure to the chemical substances to the extent practicable. TSCA
requires the EPA to issue proposed rules no later than June 22, 2019,
and final rules no more than 18 months later.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA also authorize the EPA to cover a
portion of its annual costs for the TSCA program by collecting user
fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they submit test
data for the 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 the
EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation. In Fiscal Year 2019, the EPA
expects to take final action on the 2018 proposed fees rule.
Review of Lead Dust Hazard Standards Under TSCA. In June 2018,
[[Page 57935]]
EPA proposed strengthening the dust-lead hazard standards on floors and
window sills. These standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-
occupied facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten
facilities. Per a court order deadline, EPA intends on taking final
action in June 2019.
Reconsideration of Pesticide Safety Requirements. In Fiscal Year
2019, the EPA expects to take a final action on amendments to pesticide
safety regulations that address requirements for the certification of
pesticide applicators and established agricultural worker protection
standards, which EPA intends on proposing in 2018. Specifically, the
EPA is considering amending changes to the Certification of Pesticide
Applicators regulations that EPA issued in 2017, and changes to the
agricultural Worker Protection Standard regulations that EPA issued in
2015.
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 the
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 2019, the EPA is
planning on finalizing approximately 30 deregulatory actions and fewer
than ten regulatory actions.
Rules Expected To Affect Small Entities
By better coordinating small business activities, the 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 the EPA's Regulatory Flexibility website
(https://www.epa.gov/reg-flex) at any time.
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Proposed Rule Stage
119. Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act
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. 7401 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: These amendments would address when a major source can
become an area source, and, thus, become not subject to national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for major
sources under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112. The amendments will
implement the EPA's plain language reading of the CAA section 112
definitions of ``major'' and ``area'' sources as discussed in the
January 2018 William Wehrum memorandum titled ``Reclassification of
Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.''
(See notice in 83 FR 5543, February 8, 2018.) This action will provide
an opportunity for interested persons to provide comment on many of the
same issues covered in the 2007 NESHAP: General Provision Amendments
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2017).
Statement of Need: The EPA will issue a proposed rule to add
regulatory text that reflects EPA's plain language reading of the
statute as discussed in the January 25, 2018, William Wehrum Memorandum
(see notice in 83 FR 5543, February 8, 2018).
Summary of Legal Basis: The January 25, 2018, William Wehrum
Memorandum withdrew the Once In, Always In (OIAI) policy that required
facilities that are major sources for HAP on the first substantive
compliance date of a NESHAP maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standard to comply permanently with the MACT standard. The EPA
will issue a proposal to add regulatory text that reflects EPA's plain
language reading of the statute as discussed in the January 25, 2018,
William Wehrum Memorandum.
Alternatives: Not yet determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Adding regulatory text to be
consistent with the plain language reading will allow sources
classified as major to become area sources. This could lead to
regulatory burden reduction for sources that have reclassified to area
source status by not having to comply with previously applicable CAA
section 112 major source requirements. An analysis to determine cost
savings and benefits is underway to support issuance of a proposed
rule.
Risks: Not yet determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/03/07 72 FR 69
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 03/05/07 72 FR 9718
Notice.............................. 02/08/18 83 FR 5543
Second NPRM......................... 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0094.
Agency Contact: Elineth Torres, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D205-
02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-4347, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AM75
EPA--OAR
120. Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing
Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline
Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program
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. 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 via
Executive Order 13771. The EPA has, in a separate action, proposed to
repeal the CPP. The EPA solicited input on a CPP replacement rule
through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) published on
December 28, 2017. On August 31, 2018, the EPA published the proposed
Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule in the Federal Register as a
replacement for the CPP.
Statement of Need: The EPA has conducted its initial review of the
CPP, as directed by Executive Order 13783,
[[Page 57936]]
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 and issued ANPRM, the
agency has signed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as a
replacement to the CPP. The proposed ACE rule is intended to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil-fueled electric
generating units. The proposal solicits information on the development
of such a regulation with the intention of promulgating a final
replacement.
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, 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.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. In the intended
proposed replacement to the CPP, the Agency will assess the costs and
benefits.
Risks: Not yet determined. In the intended proposed replacement to
the CPP, the Agency will assess the risks to the extent feasible.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 12/28/17 82 FR 61507
NPRM................................ 08/31/18 83 FR 44746
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/30/18
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by
Executive Order 13211.
Agency Contact: Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Phone: 919 541-4080, Email: [email protected].
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2968, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT67
EPA--OAR
121. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NSR): Project Emissions Accounting
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
CFR Citation: Undetermined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Under the New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction
permitting program, sources undergoing modifications need to determine
whether their modification is considered a major modification and thus
subject to NSR pre-construction permitting. A source owner determines
if its source is undergoing a major modification under NSR using a two-
step applicability test. The first step is to determine if there is a
``significant emission increase'' of a regulated NSR pollutant from the
proposed modification (Step 1) and the second step is to determine if
there is a ``significant net emission increase'' of that pollutant
(Step 2). In this action, we are proposing the consideration of
emissions increases and decreases from a modification in Step 1 of the
NSR major modification applicability test for all unit types (i.e.,
new, existing, and hybrid units).
Statement of Need: In March 2018, the Agency issued an
interpretative memorandum to clarify that we interpret our current NSR
regulations to allow Project Emissions Accounting for hybrid units as
well as for new and existing units. This regulation would further
clarify the concept of Project Emissions Accounting for all types of
emissions units.
Summary of Legal Basis: 40 CFR 52.21.
Alternatives: Alternatives will be analyzed as the proposal is
developed.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed
as the proposal is developed.
Risks: Risks will be analyzed as the proposal is developed.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0048.
Agency Contact: Jessica Montanez, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Phone: 919 541-3407, Fax: 919 541-5509, Email:
[email protected].
Raj Rao, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
5344, Fax: 919 541-5509, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT89
EPA--OAR
122. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On June 3, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published a final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final
Rule.'' Following promulgation of the final rule, the Administrator
received petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the
rule. The EPA is addressing those specific reconsideration issues in a
separate proposal. A number of states and industry associations sought
judicial review of the rule, and the litigation is currently being held
in abeyance. On March 28, 2017, newly elected President Donald Trump
issued Executive Order 13783 titled ``Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth,'' which directs agencies to review existing
regulations that potentially burden the development of domestic energy
resources, and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind regulations
that unduly burden the development of U.S. energy resources beyond what
is necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with
the law. In 2017, the EPA provided notice to initiate the review of the
2016 rule and stated that, if appropriate, it will initiate proceedings
to suspend, revise or rescind the rule. Subsequently, in a notice dated
June 5, 2017, the EPA further committed to look broadly at the entire
2016 rule. The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to
address key policy issues, such as the regulation of greenhouse gases,
in this sector.
Statement of Need: On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule
titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and
[[Page 57937]]
Modified Sources; Final Rule.'' On March 28, 2017, newly elected
President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13783 titled ``Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' which directs agencies to
review existing regulations that potentially burden the development of
domestic energy resources, and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind
regulations that unduly burden the development of U.S. energy resources
beyond what is necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise
comply with the law. In 2017, the EPA provided notice to initiate the
review of the 2016 rule and stated that, if appropriate, it will
initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the rule.
Subsequently, in a notice dated June 5, 2017, the EPA further committed
to look broadly at the entire 2016 rule. The purpose of this action is
to propose amendments to address key policy issues, such as the
regulation of greenhouse gases, in this sector. This proposal will
solicit comments and/or information from the public regarding the
Agency's proposed requirements and options under consideration. These
amendments are anticipated to remove regulatory duplication in an
effort to reduce burden.
Summary of Legal Basis: The review of the 2016 OOOOa rule is an
exercise of the EPA's authority under section 111(b)(1)(B), section
307(d)(7)(B) and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Alternatives: For the 2016 OOOOa review proposal, we anticipate
soliciting comment on a lead policy option for the regulation of
greenhouse gases and the sector regulatory structure and an alternative
policy option under consideration.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These values are estimates that are
likely to change. Note all values at 7 percent discount rate in 2016
dollars. Total Present Value of Cost (2019 through 2025): $101 million
Costs Annually: $18 million Forgone Benefits (2019 through 2025); $13
million Forgone Benefits Annually: $2.3 million.
Risks: We do not anticipate any risks to health related to this
action.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757.
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.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-standards-and-guidelines-oil-and-natural-gas-industry
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].
RIN: 2060-AT90
EPA--OAR
123. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants Residual Risk
and Technology Review and Cost Review
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412, Clean Air Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This action will address the Agency's residual risk and
technology review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units (commonly referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS)), 40 CFR 63, subpart UUUUU, promulgated pursuant to
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on February 16, 2012 (67 FR
9464), and address other issues associated with the 2012 rule.
Statement of Need: The EPA has completed its initial review of the
MATS Supplemental Cost Finding (81 FR 24420, April 25, 2016) to
determine if the finding will be reconsidered. The EPA will issue the
results of the review in a notice of proposed rulemaking and will
solicit comment on the resulting finding. The EPA will also, in the
same action, propose the results of the RTR for MATS.
Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412, provides
the legal framework and basis for regulatory actions addressing
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. CAA
section 112(f)(2) requires EPA, within 8 years of the promulgation of
standards under CAA section 112(d), to determine whether additional
standards are needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. CAA
section 112(d)(6) requires EPA to review, and revise as necessary,
emission standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d) at least every
8 years, taking into account developments in practices, processes and
control technologies.
Alternatives: Not yet determined. The EPA will consider whether
alternative options are warranted once the Agency has completed the
review of the Supplemental Cost Finding and the RTR.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. Costs and
benefits will depend upon the results of the review of the Supplemental
Cost Finding and on the results of the RTR.
Risks: Not yet determined. Risks will depend upon the results of
the review of the Supplemental Cost Finding and on the results of the
RTR.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18 .......................
-----------------------------------
Final Rule.......................... To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.
Sectors Affected: 921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal
Governments; 221122 Electric Power Distribution; 221112 Fossil Fuel
Electric Power Generation.
Agency Contact: Mary Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-
01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5025, Email:
[email protected].
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2968, Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AT99
EPA--OAR
124. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model
Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
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
[[Page 57938]]
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years
2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks'' (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The
SAFE Vehicles Rule, if finalized, would amend certain existing
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish
new standards, all covering model years 2021 through 2026. More
specifically, EPA proposed to amend its carbon dioxide emissions
standards for model years 2021 through 2025 because they are no longer
appropriate and reasonable in addition to establishing new standards
for model year 2026. The preferred alternative is to retain the model
year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for
passenger cars and light trucks) for both programs through model year
2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives.
Statement of Need: Since finalizing the agencies' previous joint
rulemaking in 2012 titled Final Rule for Model Year 2017 and Later
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards, and even since EPA's 2016 and early 2017 mid-term
evaluation process, the agencies have gathered new information, and
have performed new analysis. That new information and analysis has led
the agencies to the tentative conclusion that holding standards
constant at MY 2020 levels through MY 2026 is appropriate.
Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 7411, Clean Air Act.
Alternatives: The preferred alternative is to retain the model year
2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger
cars and light trucks) through model year 2026, but comment is sought
on a wide range of alternatives, including eight alternatives ranging
in stringency from the preferred alternative to the standards currently
in place. Those eight alternatives are: (1) The no action alternative,
which leaves the standards as they are and were announced in 2012 for
MYs 2021-2025; (2) Alternative 2 increases the stringency of targets
annually during MYs 2021-2026 by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for
light trucks; (3) Alternative 3 phases out A/C efficiency and off-cycle
adjustments and increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs
2021-2026 by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for light trucks; (4)
Alternative 4 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs
2021-2026 by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; (5)
Alternative 5 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs
2022-2026 by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; (6)
Alternative 6 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs
2021-2026 by 2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks; (7)
Alternative 7 phases out A/C efficiency and off-cycle adjustments and
increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 by
1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; and (8) Alternative
8 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2022-2026 by
2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks. In addition, EPA is
requesting comment on a variety of enhanced flexibilities whereby EPA
would make adjustments to current incentives and credits provisions and
potentially add new flexibility opportunities to broaden the pathways
manufacturers would have to meet standards. Such an approach would
support the increased application of technologies that the automotive
industry is developing and deploying that could potentially lead to
further long-term emissions reductions and allow manufacturers to
comply with standards while reducing costs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Compared to maintaining the post-
2020 standards set forth in 2012, NHTSA's analysis estimates that this
proposal would result in $176 billion in societal net benefits, and
reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of
vehicles through MY 2029). U.S. fuel consumption would increase by
about half a million barrels per day (2-3 percent of total daily
consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration),
emissions would increase by 7,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
by 2100, and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree
Celsius by 2100, also when compared to the standards set forth in 2012.
Risks: The proposed rule analyzes a range of public health and
environmental risks, including the risks of increased greenhouse gas
emission reductions on climate change, risks of increases of criteria
pollutants and air toxics emissions on public health and air quality,
and the risks of increased mobile source air emissions and climate
impacts on children's health. The proposal discusses risks associated
with increased petroleum consumption and the need for the U.S. to
conserve oil, as well as risks associated with vehicle safety and
travel demand. The proposal also examines economic risks including
impacts on employment, vehicle sales, and U.S. industry
competitiveness.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/24/18 83 FR 42986
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/23/18 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Christopher Lieske, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, ASD, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone:
734 214-4584, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AU09
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Proposed Rule Stage
125. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals
Under TSCA Section 6(H)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, TSCA 6
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, June 21, 2019, Statutory: TSCA
section 6(h).
Final, Statutory, December 22, 2020, Statutory: TSCA section 6(h).
Abstract: As part of EPA's continuing efforts to implement the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which
amended the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) with immediate effect
upon its enactment on June 22, 2016, EPA is developing a proposed rule
to implement TSCA section 6(h). TSCA section 6(h) directs EPA to issue
regulations under section 6(a) for certain persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic chemical substances that were identified in the 2014 update
of the TSCA Work Plan. These regulations must be proposed by June 22,
2019, and issued in final form no later than eighteen months after
proposal. Section 6(h) further directs EPA, in selecting among the
available prohibitions and other restrictions in TSCA section 6(a), to
address risks of injury to health or the environment that
[[Page 57939]]
the Administrator determines are presented by the chemical substances
and reduce exposure to the chemical substances to the extent
practicable. EPA must develop an exposure and use assessment, but the
statute explicitly states that a risk evaluation is not required for
these chemical substances. EPA has identified five chemical substances
for proposed action under TSCA section 6(h). These chemical substances
are: Decabromodiphenyl ether; hexachlorobutadiene;
pentachlorothiophenol; phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1), also
known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate; and 2,4,6-tris(tert-
butyl)phenol. Decabromodiphenyl ether is a flame retardant that has
been widely used in textiles, plastics, adhesives and polyurethane
foam. Hexachlorobutadiene is produced as a byproduct in the production
of chlorinated solvents and has also been used as an absorbent for gas
impurity removal and as an intermediate in the manufacture of rubber
compounds. Pentachlorothiophenol is also used in the manufacture of
rubber compounds. Phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) is a flame
retardant and is also used in lubricants and hydraulic fluids and in
the manufacture of other compounds. 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol is an
antioxidant that can be used as a fuel or lubricant and as an
intermediate in the manufacture of other compounds.
Statement of Need: Decisions and related analysis are still in
process and not available for this rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: Decisions and related analysis are still in
process and not available for this rule.
Alternatives: Decisions and related analysis are still in process
and not available for this rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Decisions and related analysis are
still in process and not available for this rule.
Risks: Decisions and related analysis are still in process and not
available for this rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act-0#pbt.
Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484,
Email: [email protected].
Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code
7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0515, Fax: 202 566-0473,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK34
EPA--OCSPP
126. 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: Deregulatory.
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). The rule went into effect on March 6, 2017. In accordance
with Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited comments in the spring of
2017 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. Based on concerns
raised through the Regulatory Reform process, EPA announced in December
2017 that it was beginning a process to reconsider the minimum age
provision for the Certification rule. EPA plans to issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for this action.
Statement of Need: Based on input received from stakeholders in
part on Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,
the Agency is proposing to amend the Certification of Pesticide
Applicators rule (``Certification rule''), 40 CFR part 171, as revised
January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952), by revising the minimum age requirements
for applicators certified to use RUPs and for persons who use RUPs
under the supervision of a certified applicator. EPA is proposing to
defer to state or tribal minimum age requirements for commercial
applicators, private applicators and noncertified applicators who use
RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator and to establish a
federal minimum age of 16 years for all three types of applicators if
states or tribes do not establish enforceable minimum age requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: This proposal would amend the Certification
of Pesticide Applicators rule (``Certification rule''), 40 CFR part
171, as revised January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952).
Alternatives: Not to propose the rule with the potential to reduce
costs and potentially streamline regulatory burden.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: By law, some states have minimum age of 18 years of age for
workers and would probably not change the state laws to reap the
additional cost benefit of this rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 12/19/17 82 FR 60195
NPRM................................ 01/00/19 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
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: Jeanne Kasai, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue
[[Page 57940]]
NW, Mail Code PYS1162, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-3240, 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].
Related RIN: Related to 2070-AJ20
RIN: 2070-AK37
EPA--OCSPP
127. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard;
Reconsideration of Several Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
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 in the spring
of 2017 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. Based on concerns raised through the Regulatory Reform agenda
process, EPA intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
for this action.
Statement of Need: This action provides a response to comments
received from the regulated community expressed through the Regulatory
Reform Agenda. EPA is proposing changes to the requirements in the
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) related to minimum age,
designated representative, application exclusion zone (AEZ), and entry
restrictions for enclosed space production. EPA is also proposing a
number of minor revisions to correct language and unintentional errors
in the 2015 version of the rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: This action is issued under the authority
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7
U.S.C. 136 to 136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.
Alternatives: Not to implement the NPRM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: By law, some states have minimum age of 18 years of age for
workers and would probably not change the state laws to reap the
additional cost benefit of this rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 12/21/17 82 FR 60576
NPRM................................ 01/00/19 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
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: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Stop 7506P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002,
Fax: 703 308-2962, 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 POLICY (OP)
Proposed Rule Stage
128. Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and
Benefits in the Rulemaking Process
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA is considering developing implementing regulations
that would increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices,
increase reliability to affected stakeholders, and increase
transparency during the development of regulatory actions. Many EPA
statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, provide
language on the consideration of benefits and costs, but these have
historically been interpreted differently by the EPA depending on the
office promulgating the regulatory action. This has led to EPA choosing
different standards under the same provision of the statute, the
regulatory community not being able to rely on consistent application
of the statute, and EPA developing internal policies on the
consideration of benefits and costs through non-transparent actions.
EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June 2018. The
Agency is now reviewing comments received to determine if developing
implementing regulations through a notice-and-comment rulemaking
process or other action could provide the public with a better
understanding on how EPA weighs benefits and costs when developing a
regulatory action and allow the public to provide better feedback to
EPA on potential future proposed rules.
Statement of Need: EPA implements many environmental statutes,
including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, etc. All these laws
provide statutory direction for making regulatory decisions. EPA has
applied varied and sometimes inconsistent interpretations of these
statutory directions with respect to the consideration of costs and
benefits in regulatory decision making. In doing so, EPA has created
regulatory uncertainty, making planning decisions difficult and clouded
the transparency of EPA decision making.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is considering developing a
foundational rule (or series of rules) to better clarify EPA's
interpretation of costs and benefit
[[Page 57941]]
considerations discussed in existing statutes. The rule would be
proposed using the existing authority provided in each of the statutes
providing regulatory authority to EPA (e.g., Clean Air Act).
Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed for this
action. Alternatives will be developed following review of public
comments received on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is fundamentally different
than regulations that place limits on pollution or otherwise clean the
environment. It will not directly lead to changes in environmental
quality. However, by improving the transparency and clarity of EPA's
interpretation of when and how benefits and costs are considered in
decision making, EPA will provide greater regulatory certainty that
will allow regulated entities to better plan for future regulatory
requirements. It may also enhance the utilization of benefit-cost
analysis in decision making. EPA plans to provide a full discussion and
exposition of anticipated benefits and costs of regulatory approaches
if the rule(s) go forward.
Risks: In this action, EPA is examining the role of benefits, costs
and other economic analytic concepts play in decision making, not the
instructions on how to conduct economic analysis as contained in OMB
Circular A-4 or EPA's Guidelines on Performing Economic Analysis.
Consequently, assessment of costs and benefits will be addressed under
subsequent rulemakings developed to tackle specific pollutants.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 06/13/18 83 FR 27524
Comment Period Extended............. 07/03/18 83 FR 31098
NPRM................................ 05/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Elizabeth Kopits, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Mail Code 1809T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202
566-2299, Email: [email protected].
Ken Munis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Mail
Code 1104T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7353, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2010-AA12
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Proposed Rule Stage
129. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residues From Electric Utilities: Amendments to the National
Minimum Criteria (Phase 2)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 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: None.
Abstract: The EPA is publishing three rules (Phase One Rule Part
One, Phase One Rule Part Two, and Phase Two Rule) to modify the final
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Rule, published April 17,
2015. The EPA proposed Phase One in March 2018. The Agency then
finalized a small number of the provisions from the Phase One proposal
in the final rule, Phase One Part One rule, in July 2018. This rule is
the second set of potential revisions to EPA's 2015 CCR Disposal Rule.
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA plans to complete its review of all of
the remaining matters raised in litigation and the petitions for
reconsideration that were not included in the Phase One proposed rules,
propose any revisions to those provisions determined to be warranted,
and propose regulations for a federal CCR permit program.
Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, 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 on April 18, 2016. As part
of that settlement, on April 18, 2016, 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
EPA's motion. One claim was the subject of a rulemaking completed on
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule addresses some of the
claims that were remanded back to 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 EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA
is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide
flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the
WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. Under the WIIN Act,
State programs require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve
compliance with either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA
determines to be as protective as the existing federal CCR
requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: As part of the settlement agreement
discussed above, EPA committed to make best efforts to take final
action on the remaining claims by December 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 EPA has not identified any
significant alternatives for analysis. Regarding the WIIN Act
implementation 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: EPA will provide estimates of costs
and benefits resulting from this proposed rule once they are fully
developed and have received Agency clearance.
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 expected to produce
human health and environmental benefits, which will likely be described
qualitatively.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/coalash.
Agency Contact: Mary Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
[[Page 57942]]
Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8453,
Email: [email protected].
Kirsten Hillyer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land
and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 347-0369, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG98
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Proposed Rule Stage
130. 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 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.
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 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 by the 68,000 drinking water systems that are
covered by the rule.
Alternatives: The alternatives are to be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits are to be
determined.
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 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................................ 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation
Systems.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.
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 57943]]
EPA--OW
131. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Regulation of
Perchlorate
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. 300f et seq., Safe Drinking Water Act
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, October 31, 2018, Consent Decree,
NRDC v. EPA (No. 16 Civ. 1251, S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2016).
Final, Judicial, December 19, 2019, Consent Decree, NRDC v. EPA
(No. 16 Civ. 1251, S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2016).
Abstract: A consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York states that EPA shall propose a
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) with a proposed
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate in drinking water
no later than 10/31/18 and finalize a MCLG and NPDWR for perchlorate in
drinking water no later than 12/19/19. The EPA has begun the process
for developing a NPDWR for perchlorate. The Safe Drinking Water Act
describes the EPA's requirements for regulating contaminants. In
accordance with these requirements, the EPA will consider the Science
Advisory Board's guidance on how to best interpret perchlorate health
information to derive a MCLG for perchlorate. The agency is also
evaluating the feasibility and affordability of treatment technologies
to remove perchlorate from drinking water and will examine the costs
and benefits of a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and alternative MCLs.
The EPA is also seeking input through informal and formal processes
from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, the Department of
Health and Human Services, State and Tribal drinking water programs,
the regulated community (public water systems), public health
organizations, academia, environmental and public interest groups, and
other interested stakeholders on a number of issues relating to the
regulation of perchlorate.
Statement of Need: The EPA issued a final determination to regulate
perchlorate on February 11, 2011. The EPA's 2011 determination was
based upon the three criteria for regulation under the Safe Drinking
Water Act: (1) The EPA determined that perchlorate may have adverse
effects on the health of persons based upon the National Research
Council's study that found perchlorate inhibits the thyroid's ability
to uptake iodide needed to produce hormones. (2) The EPA concluded that
perchlorate occurs with frequency at levels of health concern in public
water systems based upon data collected under the first Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) from 2001 to 2005. Monitoring
results reported to the EPA under UCMR 1 show that perchlorate was
measured in over four percent of water systems. (3) The EPA concluded
that there was a meaningful opportunity to protect public health
through a drinking water regulation by reducing perchlorate exposure
for the 5 to 17 million people who may be served perchlorate in their
drinking water. In 2013, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended
that the EPA use models, rather than the traditional approach to
establish the health-based maximum contaminant level goal for a
perchlorate regulation. The EPA and FDA scientists worked
collaboratively to develop biological models in accordance with SAB
recommendations. The EPA completed peer review of this analysis in
March 2018. The EPA will utilize the best available, peer-reviewed
science to inform regulatory decisionmaking for perchlorate.
Summary of Legal Basis: On October 18, 2016, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York entered a consent decree,
which requires the EPA to sign, for publication in the Federal
Register, a proposed MCLG and NPDWR for perchlorate by October 30, 2018
and issue a final MCLG and NPDWR by December 19, 2019. See NRDC v. EPA,
No. 16 Civ. 1251 (S.D.N.Y.). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
section 1412(b)(1)(A), requires the EPA to make a determination whether
to regulate at least five contaminants from its Contaminant Candidate
List every 5 years. Once the EPA makes a determination to regulate a
contaminant in drinking water, SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(E) requires the
EPA to issue a proposed maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) within 24 months and
a final MCLG and NPDWR within 18 months of proposal (with an
opportunity for one 9-month extension). The EPA made a determination to
regulate perchlorate in drinking water on February 11, 2011.
Alternatives: The alternatives will be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs and benefits
will be determined.
Risks: Perchlorate competes with iodide for transport into the
thyroid gland, which is a necessary step in the production of thyroid
hormones. Therefore, perchlorate may lead to decreases in levels of
these hormones. Thyroid hormones are essential to the growth and
development of fetuses, infants, and young children, as well as to
metabolism and energy regulation throughout the life span. Primary
pathways for human exposure to perchlorate are ingestion of
contaminated food and drinking water.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297.
Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation
Systems.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/perchlorate-drinking-water.
Agency Contact:
Samuel Hernandez, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
1200 Pennyslvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4607M, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-1735, 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-AF28
EPA--OW
132. Revised Definition of ``Waters of the United States''
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; 40 CFR 117; 40
CFR 122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: 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 (2015 Rule) (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
[[Page 57944]]
the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order
13778, 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. The agencies are publishing this
proposed rule to follow the first step, which sought to recodify the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that existed prior to the
2015 rule. In this second step, the agencies are conducting a
substantive reevaluation and revision of the definition of waters of
the United States'' in accordance with the Executive Order.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order: Restoring the Rule of Law,
Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ``Waters of the United
States'' Rule. To meet the objectives of the Executive order, the EPA
and Department of the Army (Agencies) are engaged in an comprehensive,
two-step rulemaking process. This action follows the first step 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 E.O.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed at this
time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An economic analysis analyzing
anticipated costs and benefits will be developed for the rulemaking at
the time of proposal.
Risks: This action does not establish an environmental standard
intended to address environmental or health risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/00/18
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Michael McDavit, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 4504T, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF75
EPA--OW
133. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1361; 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1318; 33
U.S.C. 1317; 33 U.S.C. 1316; 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: EPA received petitions from the Utility Water Act Group
and the U.S. Small Business Administration requesting reconsideration
and an administrative stay of provisions of EPA's final rule titled
``Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category,'' (80 FR 67838; November 3,
2015). After considering the petitions, the Administrator decided that
it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking
that may result in revisions to the new, more stringent Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for existing sources in the 2015 rule that apply
to bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater.
EPA does not intend in this rulemaking to revise the BAT effluent
limitations or pretreatment standards in the 2015 rule for fly ash
transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, gasification
wastewater, or any of the other requirements in the 2015 rule. As part
of the rulemaking process, EPA will provide notice and an opportunity
for public comment on any proposed revisions to the 2015 final rule.
Statement of Need: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA intends to
undertake a rulemaking that may result in revisions to certain Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations
and pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for the steam
electric power generating point source category, which were published
in the Federal Register on November 3, 2015.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPA intends to propose this rule under the
authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
Alternatives: The alternatives are to be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The associated costs and benefits
for the regulatory options are to be determined.
Risks: The associated risks are to be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/19 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819. https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines.
Agency Contact: Richard Benware, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Mail Code 4303T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-
1369, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF14, Related to 2040-AF76
RIN: 2040-AF77
EPA--OW
134. Peak Flows Management
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Wet weather events (e.g., rain, snowmelt) can affect
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) operations when excess water
enters the wastewater collection system. The increased wet weather
flows can exceed the POTW treatment plant's capacity to provide the
same type of treatment for all of the incoming wastewater. The
treatment plant's secondary treatment units are the most likely to be
adversely affected by wet weather because the biological systems can be
damaged when too much water flows through them. POTWs employ a variety
of operational practices to ensure the integrity of their secondary
treatment units during wet weather. This update to the regulations will
seek to clarify permitting procedures so as to provide POTWs with
separate sanitary sewer systems flexibility in how they manage and
treat peak flows under wet weather conditions. These updates will also
seek to ensure a consistent national approach for permitting POTWs that
allows efficient treatment plant operation while
[[Page 57945]]
protecting the public from potential adverse health effects of
inadequately treated wastewater.
Statement of Need: This update to the regulations will seek to
clarify permitting procedures for POTW treatment plants with separate
storm sewer systems under wet weather operational conditions. These
updates will also seek to ensure a consistent national approach for
permitting POTWs that provides for efficient treatment plant operation
while protecting the public from potential adverse health effects of
inadequately treated wastewater.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule will be proposed under the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 33 U.S.C. 1314.
Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed at this
time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost 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................................ 07/00/19 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 07/00/20 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Jamie Piziali, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-1438, Email: [email protected].
Lisa Biddle, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202
566-0350, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF81
EPA--OW
135. Clean Water Act Section 404(C) Regulatory Revision
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: ``Not Yet Determined''
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 230.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the
Administrator ``to prohibit the specification (including withdrawal of
the specification) of any defined area as a disposal site'' as well as
to ``deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification
(including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site . . .
whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public
hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have
an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish
beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas),
wildlife, or recreational areas.'' This rulemaking will consider, at
minimum, changes to EPA's 404(c) review process that would govern the
future use of EPA's section 404(c) authority.
Statement of Need: The EPA's regulations governing CWA Section
404(c) are being revisited to reflect today's permitting process and
modern-day methods and protections, including the robust ex siting
processes under the National Environmental Policy Act that requires
federal agencies to consider the environmental and related social and
economic effects of their proposed actions while providing
opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations. The
updated regulations have the opportunity for increasing certainty for
landowners, investors, businesses and entrepreneurs to make investment
decisions while preserving the EPA's authority to restrict discharges
of dredge or fill material that will have an unacceptable adverse
effect on water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife.
Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Water Act (CWA) 404(c).
Alternatives: The alternatives will be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs and benefits
will be determined.
Risks: The associated risks will be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Brian Frazer, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1652, Fax:
202 566-1349, Email: [email protected].
Russell Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0963,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2040-AF88
EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)
Final Rule Stage
136. Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Sulfur Oxides
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 25, 2018, Signed by 5/25/2018.
Final, Judicial, January 28, 2019, Signed by 1/28/2019.
Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is
required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria
and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On
June 22, 2010, EPA published a final rule to revise the primary
(health-based) NAAQS for Sulfur Oxides to provide increased protection
for public health. This review of the 2010 NAAQS includes the
preparation by EPA of an Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated Science
Assessment, a Risk/Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment
Document, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public. These documents inform the
Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the
current standard. This proposed decision was published in the Federal
Register with opportunity provided for public comment. The
Administrator's final decisions will take into consideration these
documents, CASAC advice, and public comment on the proposed decision.
Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA
is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality
criteria and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5
years. On June 22, 2010, EPA published a final rule to revise the
primary (health-based) NAAQS for sulfur oxides to provide increased
protection for public health.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality
criteria and the primary (health-based) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision
on the review of the primary (health-based) national ambient air
quality standard for sulfur oxides (SOX) is whether to
retain or revise the existing standard.
[[Page 57946]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards is not to
be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such factors
may be considered in the development of State plans to implement the
standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes revisions to the
standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to
provide States information that may be useful in considering different
implementation strategies for meeting proposed or final standards. In
those instances, cost and benefit information is generally included in
the regulatory analysis accompanying the final rule. Because this
action does not propose to change the existing primary NAAQS for
SOX, it does not impose costs or benefits relative to the
baseline of continuing with the current NAAQS in effect. EPA has thus
not prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis for this action.
Risks: As part of this review, the EPA prepared an Integrated
Review Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, a Risk/Exposure
Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment document, with opportunities
for review by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the
public. These documents will inform the Administrator's decision as to
whether to retain or revise the standards. The proposed decision was
published in the Federal Register with opportunity provided for public
comment. The Administrator's final decisions will take into
consideration these documents and public comment on the proposed
decision.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/08/18 83 FR 26752
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 06/21/18 83 FR 28843
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Nicole Hagan, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504-
06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-3153, Email:
[email protected].
Karen Wesson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504-06, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-3515, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT68
EPA--OAR
137. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel
(BBD) Volume for 2020
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
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: EPA requested comment on using the general waiver
authority to reduce the required volumes for advanced and total
renewable fuel in the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs were developed for
the proposed rule ($380-$740 million). 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. An
updated estimate of the costs, based on a number of illustrative
assumptions, will be provided in the final rule.
Risks: Environmental assessments are primarily addressed under
another section of the CAA (Section 204). EPA released an updated
report to Congress on June 29, 2018. More information on this report
can be found at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 07/03/18 83 FR 31098
NPRM................................ 07/10/18 83 FR 32024
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact:
Dallas Burkholder, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Radiation, N26, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4766, Email:
[email protected].
Tia Sutton, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-8929, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2060-AT93
EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)
Final Rule Stage
138. Review of Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-
Based Paint
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2681, TSCA 401; 15 U.S.C. 2682; 15
U.S.C. 2683, TSCA 403; 15 U.S.C. 2684
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 22, 2018, NPRM issuance
ordered within 90 days of the date that the 9th Circuit's decision
becomes final.
Final, Judicial, June 22, 2019, The December 27, 2017, decision of
the Ninth Circuit ordered ``that EPA promulgate the final rule within
one year after the promulgation of the proposed rule . . . .''.
Abstract: EPA is reviewing existing regulatory dust-lead hazard
standards for target housing and Child Occupied Facilities (COFs), and
the definition of lead-based paint for non-target housing. On March 6,
1996, the EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
issued a joint final
[[Page 57947]]
regulation that, under section 401 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), adopted the statutory definition of lead-based paint as ``paint
or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of
1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.'' On
January 5, 2001, EPA issued a final regulation that, under section 403
of the TSCA, established regulatory dust-lead hazard standards of 40
[mu]g/ft2 for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft2 for
interior window sills. On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition
requesting that EPA take action to lower EPA's regulatory dust-lead
hazard standards and the definition of lead-based paint. On October 22,
2009, EPA responded to the petition, agreeing to initiate a proceeding
to determine whether the dust-lead hazard standards, and the definition
of lead-based paint for non-target housing should be revised. On August
24, 2016, advocates filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking the court to compel EPA
to make these revisions. The proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register on July 2, 2018, and was issued in compliance with the
December 27, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent
March 26, 2018, order that directed the EPA ``to issue a proposed rule
within ninety (90) days from the filed date of this order.'' Scientific
advances made since the promulgation of the 2001 rule clearly
demonstrate that exposure to low levels of lead result in adverse
health effects. Moreover, since CDC has stated that no safe level of
lead in blood has been identified, the reductions in children's blood
lead levels as a result of this rule would help reduce the risk of
adverse cognitive and developmental effects in children. Therefore, EPA
proposed to change the dust-lead hazard standards from 40 [mu]g/
ft2 and 250 [mu]g/ft2 to 10 [mu]g/ft2
and 100 [mu]g/ft2 on floors and window sills, respectively.
These standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied
facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten facilities. In
addition, EPA proposed to make no change to the definition of lead-
based paint because the Agency currently lacks sufficient information
to support such a change.
Statement of Need: The proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register on July 2, 2018, and was issued in compliance with the
December 27, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent
March 26, 2018, order that directed the EPA ``to issue a proposed rule
within ninety (90) days from the filed date of this order.''
Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is proposing this rule under sections
401, 402, 403, and 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as amended by title X of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Pub. L. 102-550).
Alternatives: EPA intends to finalize a rulemaking identifying
hazardous levels of lead in dust on floors and window sills. While EPA
has proposed standards of 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/
ft2 for floors and window sills respectively, EPA is
encouraging public comment on the full range of candidate standards
analyzed in the associated Technical Support Document as alternatives
to the proposal, including the option not to change the current
standard. EPA has also specifically requested comment on an option that
would reduce the floor dust standard but leave the sill dust standard
unchanged (e.g., 20 mg/ft2 for floors and 250 mg/
ft2 for window sills, or 10 mg/ft2 for floors and
250 mg/ft2 for window sills), since reducing floor dust lead
has the greatest impact on children's health.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs. This rule is estimated to
result in costs of $66 million to $119 million per year. Benefits. This
rule would reduce exposure to lead, resulting in benefits from avoided
adverse health effects. For the subset of adverse health effects where
the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits are $317
million to $2.24 billion per year using a 3% discount rate, and $68
million to $479 million using a 7% discount rate. There are additional
unquantified benefits due to other avoided adverse health effects in
children, including attention-related behavioral problems, greater
incidence of problem behaviors, decreased cognitive performance,
reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty and decreased kidney
function.
Risks: This rulemaking addresses the risk of adverse health effects
associated with lead dust exposures in children living in pre-1978
housing and child-occupied facilities, as well as associated potential
health effects in this subpopulation.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/02/18 83 FR 30889
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166.
Sectors Affected: 541350 Building Inspection Services; 624410 Child
Day Care Services; 236 Construction of Buildings; 611110 Elementary and
Secondary Schools; 541330 Engineering Services; 611519 Other Technical
and Trade Schools; 531 Real Estate; 562910 Remediation Services; 238
Specialty Trade Contractors.
URL For More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/lead.
Agency Contact:
John Yowell, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-1213, Email: [email protected].
Marc Edmonds, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code
7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0758, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2070-AJ82
EPA--OCSPP
139. Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances
Control Act
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2625 TSCA 26
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 700-791.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: As amended in June 2016, section 26(b)(1) of the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to issue a rule to
establish fees to defray the cost (including contractor costs incurred
by the Agency) associated with administering sections 4, 5, and 6, and
collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and
protecting from disclosure information on chemical substances as
appropriate under section 14. EPA issued a proposed rule in February
2018 and is planning to issue a final rule in September 2018, with
immediate effect to enable the collection of fees beginning in October
2018.
Statement of Need: The fees are intended to achieve the goals
articulated by Congress to provide a sustainable source of funds for
EPA to fulfill its legal obligations to conduct activities such as
risk-based screenings, designation of applicable substances as High-
and Low-Priority, conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment, requiring testing of chemical substances and mixtures,
and
[[Page 57948]]
evaluating and reviewing manufacturing and processing notices, as
required under TSCA sections 4, 5 and 6, as well as management of
chemical information under TSCA section 14.
Summary of Legal Basis: TSCA section 26(b), 15 U.S.C. 2625(b),
provides EPA with authority to establish fees to defray a portion of
the costs associated with administering TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6, as
amended, as well as the costs of collecting, processing, reviewing, and
providing access to and protecting information about chemical
substances from disclosure as appropriate under TSCA section 14.
Alternatives: Alternative approaches were considered in developing
the proposed rule (see 83 FR 8212, Unit III.C, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/26/2018-02928/user-fees-for-the-administration-of-the-toxic-substances-control-act) and are being
further considered in light of comments received on the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA has evaluated the potential
incremental economic impacts of the proposed rule. The Agency analyzed
a three-year period, since the statute requires EPA to reevaluate and
adjust, as necessary, the fees every three years. The Economic
Analysis, which is available in the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2016-0401, ref. 2), is briefly summarized here. The annualized
fees collected from industry for the proposed option (identified as
Option C in the Economic Analysis) are approximately $20.05 million.
This total does not include the fees collected for manufacturer-
requested risk evaluations. Total fee collections were calculated by
multiplying the estimated number of actions per fee category
anticipated each year, by the corresponding proposed fee. For the
proposed option, TSCA section 4 fees account for less than 1 percent of
the total fee collection, TSCA section 5 fees for approximately 43
percent, and TSCA section 6 fees for approximately 56 percent. Annual
fees collected by EPA are expected to total approximately $20.05
million. Under the proposed option, the total fees collected from
industry for a risk evaluation requested by manufacturers are estimated
to be $1.3 million for chemicals included in the Work Plan and $2.6
million for chemicals not included in the Work Plan. EPA estimates that
18.5 percent of TSCA section 5 submissions will be from small
businesses that are eligible to pay discounted fees because they have
average annual sales of less than $91 million in the three preceding
years. Total annualized fees for TSCA section 5 collected from small
businesses are estimated to be $550,000. For TSCA sections 4 and 6,
discounted fees for eligible small businesses and fees for all other
affected firms may differ over the three-year period that was analyzed,
since the fee paid by each firm is dependent on the number of affected
firms per action. Based on past TSCA section 4 actions and data related
to the first ten chemicals identified for risk evaluations under TSCA
as amended, EPA estimates annualized fees collected from small
businesses for TSCA section 4 and TSCA section 6 to be approximately
$37,000 and $2.6 million, respectively. EPA estimates that total fees
paid by small businesses will account for about 16 percent of the
approximately $20.05 million fees to be collected for TSCA sections 4,
5, and 6 actions. The annualized total industry fee collection for
small businesses is estimated to be approximately $3.2 million.
Risks: n/a.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/26/18 83 FR 8212
Notice.............................. 04/24/18 83 FR 17782
Final Rule.......................... 10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401. A summary
of the recent amendments to TSCA is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/.
URL For Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mark Hartman, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code: 7503P,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-0734, Email: [email protected].
Hans Scheifele, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
202 564-3122, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2070-AK27
EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)
Final Rule Stage
140. Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 151.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 16, 2018, Sign by no later
than June 16, 2018 and within 15 days thereafter transmit to the
Federal Register.
Final, Judicial, August 25, 2019, Sign by no later than 14 months
after publication of NPRM (NPRM was published on June 25, 2018) &
within 15 days thereafter transmit to the Federal Register.
Abstract: As a result of a consent decree, the EPA has issued a
proposed rule that addresses the prevention of hazardous substance
discharges under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
This section directs the President to issue regulations to prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore and offshore
facilities, and to contain such discharges. The EPA assessed the
consequences of hazardous substance discharges into the nation's
waters, and evaluated the costs and benefits of potential preventive
regulatory requirements for facilities handling such substances. Based
on an analysis of the frequency and impacts of reported CWA hazardous
substances discharges and the existing framework of EPA regulatory
requirements, the Agency is not proposing additional regulatory
requirements at this time.
Statement of Need: CWA 311(j)(1)(C) provides that the President
``[establish] procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements
for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances
from vessels and from onshore and offshore facilities, and to contain
such discharges . . .'' EPA was delegated authority for regulating
onshore facilities under CWA 311(j)(1)(C) by Executive Order 12777, and
was redelegated authority for regulating offshore facilities landward
of the coastline under CWA 311(j)(1)(C) by the Department of the
Interior. See 40 CFR 112, appendix A.
Summary of Legal Basis: In 2015, the EPA was sued for failure to
finalize a rulemaking for chemicals under the CWA 311(j)(1)(C). This
litigation was settled and a consent decree was filed
[[Page 57949]]
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 proposed rule on
June 25, 2018, and intends to have the Administrator sign a final rule
by August 25, 2019.
Alternatives: The Agency considered three alternatives. The first
alternatives was to establish a prevention program that included nine
regulatory elements aimed at preventing CWA HS discharges. The second
alternative was to establish a targeted approach that selects a limited
set of requirements designed to prevent CWA hazardous substances
discharges. This regulatory option could establish targeted
requirements under one or more of the nine program elements under the
first option; however, four elements are specifically identified and
discussed. The third, and proposed alternative, establishes no new
requirements under the authority of CWA 311(j)(1)(C).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Since the proposed action
recommended no new regulatory requirements, it neither imposes
incremental costs nor provides incremental environmental protection
benefits.
Risks: The proposed action recommended no new regulatory
requirements; therefore, EPA anticipates no changes in risk as a result
of this action. In the 40 years since CWA section 311(j)(1)(C) was
enacted by Congress, multiple statutory and regulatory requirements
have been established under different Federal authorities that
generally serve to, directly and indirectly, prevent CWA hazardous
substances discharges.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/25/18 83 FR 29499
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
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.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov.rulemaking-preventing-hazardous-substance-spills.
URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
Agency Contact: Gregory Wilson, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
Phone: 202 564-7989, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG87
EPA--OLEM
141. Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Reconsideration of Amendments
Priority: Other Significant.
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, EPA received three petitions for
reconsideration that raised concerns with provisions of the final rule.
EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the final rule via
notice and comment rulemaking to February 19, 2019, in order to conduct
a reconsideration proceeding. On May 30, 2018, EPA published proposed
changes to the final rule to address specific issues to be reconsidered
and other issues that the Agency believes warrant additional public
comment.
Statement of Need: On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule
(82 FR 4594) amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention
provisions under section 112(r) of the 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. Prior to the rule taking effect, EPA received three
petitions for reconsideration of the rule under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups and one from a group of states.
Under that provision, the Administrator is to commence a
reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the
petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to
raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection
arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial
review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. In a
letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to the first
of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the convening
of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program
Amendments. As explained in that letter, having considered the
objections raised in the petition, the Administrator determined that
the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the
objections. This proposal addresses the issues raised in all three
petitions for reconsideration, as well as other issues that EPA
believes warrant reconsideration.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Agency's procedures in this rulemaking
are controlled by CAA section 307(d). The statutory authority for this
action is provided by section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C.
7412(r)). Each of the portions of the Risk Management Program rule we
propose to modify in this document are based on section 112(r) of the
CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA's authority for convening a
reconsideration proceeding for certain issues is found under CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B) or 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B).
Alternatives: EPA's primary proposal would rescind almost all the
requirements added under the RMP Amendments rule to the accident
prevention provisions program of subparts C (for program 2 processes)
and D (for program 3 processes), and associated definitions, as well as
the Amendments rule requirements in subpart H for providing to the
public, upon request, chemical hazard information and access to
community emergency preparedness information.
[[Page 57950]]
The proposal would also modify the amendments rule provisions in
subpart E for local emergency response coordination and emergency
exercises, as well as the provisions in subpart H for public meetings
after accidents. EPA has also requested public comment on various
alternatives, including retaining certain minor changes made to the
subparts C and D prevention programs relating to hazard reviews,
incident investigations, training, and others, as well as alternatives
to the proposed changes to the local coordination and emergency
exercise provisions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In total, EPA estimates annualized
cost savings of $87.9 million at a 3% discount rate and $88.4 million
at a 7% discount rate. Most of the annual cost savings under the
proposed rule are due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual
savings of $70 million), followed by third-party audits (annual savings
of $9.8 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7
million), information availability (annual savings of $3.1 million),
and root-cause incident investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million).
The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of non-monetized benefits
from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at
RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier
access to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed
Reconsideration rule would largely retain the revised local emergency
coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule,
which convey mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the
prevention program requirements (i.e., third-party audits, incident
investigation, STAA), may result in a reduction of these benefits. The
proposed rescission of the chemical hazard information availability
provision may result in a reduction of the information sharing benefit,
although the public meeting, emergency coordination and exercise
provisions would still convey a portion of this qualitative benefit.
However, the proposed rulemaking would convey the benefit of improved
chemical site security, by modifying previously open-ended information
sharing provisions of the Amendments rule that might have resulted in
an increased risk of terrorism against regulated sources.
Risks: The chemical accident prevention provisions of Clean Air Act
section 112(r) and 40 CFR part 68 address the acute risks to human
health and the environment associated with the accidental release of
highly toxic and flammable chemicals. Approximately 12,500 U.S.
facilities are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 68, and much of
the U.S. population resides in a community containing one or more such
facilities. EPA believes that the existing part 68 provisions have been
successful in reducing the frequency and severity of accidental
chemical releases from covered facilities. The RMP Amendments Rule
produced a variety of benefits from prevention and mitigation of future
RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at
RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard
information and accident history. The proposed rule would largely
retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions
of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. If
a chemical accident or major catastrophe occurs, mitigating its impacts
benefits society by reducing the number of fatalities and injuries,
reducing the magnitude of property damage and lost productivity both
on-site and off-site, and reducing the extent of public evacuations,
sheltering, and expenditure of emergency response resources. These
retained provisions along with public meetings also produce benefits by
improving the information going to emergency planners, responders, and
the public. The proposed reconsideration of the prevention program
requirements, as well as certain information disclosure provisions in
the RMP Amendments Rule may result in a reduction in prevention and
information benefits, relative to the baseline post-2017 Amendments
rule. However, as noted above, there may be an increase in security
benefits by limiting information sharing, which might result in an
increased risk of terrorism against regulated facilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/30/18 83 FR 24850
Notice.............................. 07/24/18 83 FR 34967
Correction.......................... 07/31/18 83 FR 36837
Final Rule.......................... 01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 49313 Farm Product
Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing; 311 Food Manufacturing; 221112 Fossil
Fuel Electric Power Generation; 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and
Vegetable Manufacturing; 49311 General Warehousing and Storage; 31152
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing; 311612 Meat Processed from
Carcasses; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 32519 Other Basic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 42469 Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 49319 Other Warehousing and Storage; 322
Paper Manufacturing; 42471 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 32411
Petroleum Refineries; 311615 Poultry Processing; 49312 Refrigerated
Warehousing and Storage; 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities; 11511
Support Activities for Crop Production; 22131 Water Supply and
Irrigation Systems.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/rmp.
URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
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, 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, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 2050-AG95
EPA--OLEM
142. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residues From Electric Utilities: Amendments to the
National Minimum Criteria (Phase 1, Part 2)
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 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 published a proposed rule, Phase One rule in
March 2018, to modify the final Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
Disposal Rule, published April 17, 2015. Issues covered in the proposed
rule included the height limitation of the vegetative slopes of dikes;
the type and magnitude
[[Page 57951]]
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. The Agency is addressing these
issues in two final rules; this action is the second of the final
rules. The first final rule, Phase One Part One rule was published in
July 2018. Within the Phase One Part One rule, the EPA finalized a
small number of provisions from the March 2018 Phase One proposed rule.
If finalized as proposed, the Phase One Part Two rule would address
specific technical issues consistent with a settlement agreement to
resolve issues raised in litigation of the final CCR rule. Furthermore,
in this rule, 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, 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 on April 18, 2016. As part
of that settlement, on April 18, 2016, 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
EPA's motion. One claim was the subject of a rulemaking completed on
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule addresses the
remaining claims that were remanded back to 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 EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA
is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide
flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the
WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. State programs
require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with
either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA determines to be
as protective as the existing federal CCR requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis: As part of the settlement agreement
discussed above, 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 EPA has not identified any
significant alternatives for analysis. Regarding the WIIN Act
implementation 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: EPA will provide estimates of costs
and benefits resulting from this proposed rule once they are fully
developed and have received Agency clearance.
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................................ 03/15/18 83 FR 11584
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/30/18
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286. Linked to
2050-AG88.
Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.
URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/coalash.
URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286.
Agency Contact: Kirsten Hillyer, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5304P, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 347-0369,
Email: [email protected].
Jesse Miller, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5303P,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-1180, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 2050-AG88
RIN: 2050-AH01
EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)
Final Rule Stage
143. Definition of ``Waters of the United States''--Recodification of
Preexisting 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; 40 CFR 117; 40
CFR 122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: 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'' (2015 Rule) 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 Executive Order
13778, 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. The agencies published a proposed
rule to initiate the first step in a comprehensive, two-step process
consistent with the Executive order. In this first step, the agencies
sought to recodify the definition of ``Waters of the United States''
that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. This rule for the first step will
now be finalized.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order: Restoring the Rule of Law,
Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ``Waters of the United
States'' Rule. To meet the objectives of the Executive order, the
agencies are engaged in a comprehensive two-step rulemaking process.
Under the first step of this rulemaking process, the proposed rule will
recodify the regulatory text that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean
Water Rule and that is currently in place as a
[[Page 57952]]
result of the Agencies' February 2018 final rule to add an
applicability date of February 6, 2020 to the 2015 Rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Alternatives: In this first step, the Agencies have proposed to
repeal the 2015 definition of ``waters of the United States'' and
codify the legal status quo that is currently being administered in
light of the February 2018 final rule to add an applicability date to
the 2015 Rule. This rule will result in the recodification of the
regulations that existed prior to the 2015 Rule to provide regulatory
certainty while the agencies engage in a second rulemaking to
reconsider the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' 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. The annual
forgone benefits range from $33.6 million + unquantified forgone
benefits to $44.5 million + unquantified forgone benefits for the low-
end scenario and $55.0 million + unquantified forgone benefits to $72.8
million + unquantified forgone benefits 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
Supplemental NPRM................... 07/12/18 83 FR 32227
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Michael McDavit, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 4504T, Washington,
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, 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 (ADA), 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.
Two 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. The EEOC's Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda states that NPRMs
are expected to be issued by June 2019.
Executive Order 13771 Statement
EEOC does not anticipate finalizing any regulatory or deregulatory
actions subject to Executive Order 13771 in the next 12 months. 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
144. 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 wellness
programs. 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.
[[Page 57953]]
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 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................................ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
145. 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 (GINA) to address wellness
programs. 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................................ 06/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018
GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's
acquisition solutions supply Federal purchasers with cost-effective,
high-quality products, and services from commercial vendors. GSA
provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation
of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the nation safe and
efficient by providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to
the U.S. military, and providing state and local governments with law
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster
recovery products and services.
GSA serves the public by delivering products and services directly
to its Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS),
the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide
Policy (OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers
and the U.S. taxpayers by providing those products and services in the
most cost-effective manner possible.
[[Page 57954]]
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS
organization leverages the buying power of the Government by
consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and
services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition
services to increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency by
aligning resources around key functions.
Public Buildings Service (PBS)
PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United
States. As the landlord for the civilian Federal Government, PBS
acquires space on behalf of the Federal Government through new
construction and leasing, and acts as a manager for Federal properties
across the country. PBS is responsible for over 370 million rentable
square feet of workspace for Federal employees, owns 1,600 plus assets
totaling over 180 million rentable square feet, and contracts for more
than 7,000 plus leased assets totaling over 180 million rentable square
feet.
Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)
OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real
property, mail, travel, relocation, transportation, information
technology, regulatory information, and the use of Federal advisory
committees. OGP also helps direct how all Federal supplies and services
are acquired as well as GSA's own acquisition programs.
OGP's policy regulations are described in the following
subsections:
Office of Asset and Transportation Management--Federal Travel
Regulation
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates travel and
relocation policy for all U.S. Code, Title 5 Executive agency employees
at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. Federal Register publications and complete
versions of the FTR are available at www.gsa.gov/ftr. The Federal
Travel Regulation presents policies in a clear manner to both agencies
employees to assure that official travel is performed responsibly.
Office of Asset and Transportation Management--Federal Management
Regulation
The Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for
Federal aircraft management, mail management, transportation, personal
property, real property, and committee management. The FMR is the
successor regulation to the Federal Property Management Regulation
(FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory policies originally found in
the FPMR. However, it does not contain FPMR material that describes how
to do business with GSA. The FMR is in 41 CFR, chapters 101 through
102, and it implements statutory requirements and executive branch
policies.
Office of Acquisition Policy--General Services Administration
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR)
GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and
services from its business partners are covered by the General Services
Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM
comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies
with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes
agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners
(e.g., prospective offerors and contractors) and acquisition of
leasehold interests in real property. The latter are established under
the authority of 40 U.S.C. 585, et seq. The GSAR implements contract
clauses, solicitation provisions, and standard forms that control the
relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Activities
GSA's Regulatory Reform Task Force, established under Executive
Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, and is making it
easier to do business with GSA by eliminating outdated, ineffective, or
unnecessary regulations and policies. When GSA established its
Regulatory Reform Task Force it set up four informal working groups,
led by career employees, and gave them broad authority to review and
evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their
repeal, replacement, or modification. Those working groups are
organized around the agency's primary functions and regulations: The
Federal Management Regulation, the Federal Travel Regulation, the GSA
Acquisition Regulation, and policies relating to leasing of buildings.
During Fiscal Year 2018, GSA completed two (2) deregulatory
actions.
GSA issued a final GSAR rule on January 24, 2018 to
incorporate order level materials (OLMs), also known as other direct
costs (ODCs). This rule, which was implemented in June 2018, will make
it easier for customer agencies to buy, and industry partners to
provide, complete procurement solutions through the Federal Supply
Schedules while ensuring excellent value for taxpayer dollars.
GSA issued a final GSAR rule on February 22, 2018 to
address common commercial supplier agreement (CSA) terms that are
inconsistent with or create ambiguity with federal law. This rule,
which was implemented in June 2018, mitigates risk for GSA's federal
agency customers, reduces proposal and administrative costs for
industry partners, and helps expedite the contract review process for
GSA Contracting Officers.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Permitting Council Priorities
Fees for Governance, Oversight and Processing of Environmental
Reviews and Authorizations; The Permitting Council proposes to
establish a fee structure to reimburse the Permitting Council and its
Office of the Executive Director for reasonable costs to implement
certain requirements and authorities required under FAST-41.
Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Priorities
GSA is amending the FMR by removing language that is not
regulatory, revising rules of Federal personal property, management of
transportation and the management, construction, and disposal of
Federal real property. The appropriate real property regulations are
being aligned with the various provisions in the Federal Sales and
Transfer Act of 2016 and the Federal Property Management Reform Act of
2016. In addition, e.g. the Transportation Management regulation is
being streamlined by consolidating policies into fewer subparts and
modifying provisions to incorporate newer authorities.
Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR) Priorities
GSA is amending the FPMR by migrating regulations regarding the
supply and procurement of Government personal property management and
Interagency Fleet Management Systems from the FPMR to the FMR.
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Priorities
GSA is amending the FTR. The Relocation Regulation was impacted by
the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The amendment addresses both the
moving
[[Page 57955]]
expenses income tax deduction and qualified moving expense
reimbursement. Also, in addition, the FTR is being amended to revise
the payment in kind fee associated with registration fees provided by
non-Federal sources for speakers and panelists at meetings.
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR)
Priorities
GSA is amending the GSAR to implement streamlined and innovative
acquisition procedures. GSAR initiatives are focused on:
Adopting a major construction project delivery method
involving early industry engagement;
Establishing contractual arrangements and ordering
procedures for commercial eCommerce portals;
Streamlining contract requirements for GSA information
systems;
Establishing cyber incident reporting procedures; and
Revising the requirements for Schedules contract and
construction contract administration.
Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses
GSAR Case 2017-G502, Transition to Small Business Administration
Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program, is of interest to small
businesses as it will discontinue the GSA agency-level mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program. The mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program
will instead be centralized and managed Government-wide by SBA, as
discussed in the SBA rule at 81 FR 48557.
Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure
GSPMR Case 2016-105-01, Public Availability of Agency Records and
Informational Materials; Proposed Rule. The GSA is issuing a proposed
rule to amend its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). The regulations are being revised to update and streamline
language of several procedural provisions and to incorporate certain
changes brought about by the amendments to the FOIA under both
statutory and nonstatutory authorities. This rule also amends the GSA's
regulations under the FOIA to incorporate certain changes made to the
FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
Jessica Salmoiraghi,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-14
GSA
Proposed Rule Stage
146. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2015-G506, Adoption of Construction Project Delivery Method
Involving Early Industry Engagement
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 536; 48 CFR 552.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR)
to adopt an additional project delivery method for construction,
construction manager as constructor (CMc). The current FAR and GSAR
lacks detailed coverage differentiating various construction project
delivery methods. GSA's policies on CMc have been previously issued
through other means. By incorporating CMc into the GSAR and
differentiating for various construction methods, the GSAR will provide
centralized guidance to ensure consistent application of construction
project principles across the organization. Integrating these
requirements into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public
comments through the rulemaking process.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Tony Hubbard, Procurement Analyst, General Services
Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 202 357-
5810, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AJ64
GSA
147. General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G511, Contract Requirements for GSA Information Systems
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 502; 48 CFR 511; 48 CFR 539; 48
CFR 552.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR)
to streamline and update requirements for contracts that involve GSA
information systems. GSA's unique policies on cybersecurity and other
information technology requirements have been previously communicated
through other means. By incorporating these requirements into the GSAR,
the GSAR will provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent
application across the organization. Integrating these requirements
into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public comments
through the rulemaking process.
GSA's cybersecurity requirements mandate contractors protect the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of unclassified GSA
information and information systems from cybersecurity vulnerabilities,
and threats in accordance with the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014 and associated Federal cybersecurity
requirements. This rule will require contracting officers to
incorporate applicable GSA cybersecurity requirements within the
statement of work to ensure compliance with Federal cybersecurity
requirements and implement best practices for preventing cyber
incidents. These GSA requirements mandate applicable controls and
standards (e.g., U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. National Archive and Records Administration Controlled
Unclassified Information standards).
Contract requirements for internal information systems, external
contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered
by this rule. This rule will also update existing GSAR provision
552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security
Authorization and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for
Unclassified Information Technology Resources to only require the
provision and clause when the contract will involve information or
information systems connected to a GSA network.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57956]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Michelle Bohm, Contract Specialist, General
Services Administration, 100 S Independence Mall W Room: 9th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19106-2320, Phone: 215 446-4705, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3090-AJ84
GSA
148. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2016-G515, Cyber Incident Reporting
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 502; 48 CFR 504; 48 CFR 539; 48
CFR 552.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR)
to provide requirements for GSA contractors to report cyber incidents
that could potentially affect GSA or its customer agencies. The rule
integrates the existing cyber incident reporting policy within GSA
Order CIO 9297.2C, GSA Information Breach Notification Policy that did
not previously go through the rulemaking process into the GSAR. By
incorporating cyber incident reporting requirements into the GSAR, the
GSAR will provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent application
of cybersecurity principles across the organization. Integrating these
requirements into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public
comments through the rulemaking process.
The rule outlines the roles and responsibilities of the GSA
contracting officer, contractors, and agencies ordering off of GSA's
contracts in the reporting of a cyber incident.
The rule establishes a contractor's responsibility to report any
cyber incident where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of
GSA information or information systems are potentially compromised or
where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or
information systems owned or managed by or on behalf of the U.S.
Government is potentially compromised. It establishes an explicit
timeframe for reporting cyber incidents, details the required elements
of a cyber incident report, and provides the required Government's
points of contact for submitting the cyber incident report.
The rule also outlines additional contractor requirements that may
apply for any cyber incidents involving personally identifiable
information. In addition, the rule clarifies both GSA's and ordering
agencies' authority to access contractor systems in the event of a
cyber incident. It also establishes the role of GSA in the cyber
incident reporting process and explains how the primary response agency
for a cyber incident is determined. Further, it establishes the
requirement for contractors to preserve images of affected systems and
ensure contractor employees receive appropriate training for reporting
cyber incidents. The rule also outlines how contractor attributional/
proprietary information provided as part of the cyber incident
reporting process will be protected and used.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin Funk, Program Analyst, General Services
Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 202 357-
5805, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AJ85
GSA
149. Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC); FPISC
Case 2018-001; Fees for Governance, Oversight, and Processing of
Environmental Reviews and Authorizations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4370m-8
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1900.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: GSA proposes to establish a fee structure to reimburse
the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council and its Office of
the Executive Director for reasonable costs incurred in coordinating
environmental reviews and authorizations in implementing title 41 of
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. GSA will issue this
regulation on behalf of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering
Council.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/04/18 83 FR 44846
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/05/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Amber Dawn Levofsky, Program Analyst, General
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Room 3017, Washington, DC
20405-0001, Phone: 202 969-7298, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AJ88
GSA
Final Rule Stage
150. GSAR Case 2008-G517, Cooperative Purchasing--Acquisition of
Security and Law Enforcement Related Goods and Services (Schedule 84)
by State and Local Governments Through Federal Supply Schedules
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 40 U.S.C. 502(c)(1)(B)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 511; 48 CFR 516; 48 CFR 532; 48 CFR 538; 48
CFR 546; 48 CFR 552.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
implement Public Law 110-248, The Local Preparedness Acquisition Act.
The Act authorizes the Administrator of General Services to provide for
the use by State or local governments of Federal Supply Schedules of
the General Services Administration (GSA) for alarm and signal systems,
facility management systems, firefighting and rescue equipment, law
enforcement and security equipment, marine craft and related equipment,
special purpose clothing, and related services (as contained in Federal
supply
[[Page 57957]]
classification code group 84 or any amended or subsequent version of
that Federal supply classification group).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 09/19/08 73 FR 54334
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/18/08
End.
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, General
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone:
202 969-4066, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AI68
GSA
151. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedule Contract Administration
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 515; 48 CFR 538; 48 CFR 552.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
clarify and update the contracting by negotiation GSAR section and
incorporate existing Federal Supply Schedule Contracting policies and
procedures, and corresponding provisions and clauses.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/10/14 79 FR 54126
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/10/14
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Dana L. Munson, Procurement Analyst, General
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone:
202 357-9652, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AJ41
GSA
152. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2019-G501, Ordering Procedures for Commercial E-
Commerce Portals
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 572.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
establish competition procedures when using commercial e-commerce
portals established pursuant to section 846 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Current competition procedures
do not align with, nor reflect, technological innovation when
purchasing from commercial e-commerce portals. This rule aims to
modernize the buying experience in partnership with commercial e-
commerce portal providers, enabling GSA to combine competition with
speed, and will allow the procedures to evolve as technology advances.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 03/00/19 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment.......... 05/00/19 .......................
Period End..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Matthew McFarland, Legislative and Regulatory
Advisor, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington,
DC 20405, Phone: 301 758-5880, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3090-AK03
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (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 2018
Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to ``Lead an innovative and
sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international
partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and bring
new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth. Support growth of the
Nation's economy in space and aeronautics, increase understanding of
the universe and our place in it, work with industry to improve
America's aerospace technologies, and advance American leadership.''
The FY 2018 Strategic Plan (available at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_2018_strategic_plan.pdf) guides NASA's
program activities through a framework of the following four strategic
goals:
Strategic Goal 1: Expand human knowledge through new
scientific discoveries.
Strategic Goal 2: Extend human presence deeper into space
and to the Moon for sustainable long-term exploration and utilization.
Strategic Goal 3: Address national challenges and catalyze
economic growth.
Strategic Goal 4: Optimize capabilities and operations.
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
[[Page 57958]]
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,
engage 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 the 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 of NASA, 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 (NFS) to implement section
823 of NASA Transition Authorization of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-10) to
improve the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts in
the supply chain. This revision will add a contract clause to the NFS
to require each covered contractor, including a subcontractor, to
detect and avoid the inclusion of any counterfeit parts in electronic
parts or products that contain electronic parts, take corrective
actions necessary to remedy, and notify the applicable NASA contracting
officer not later than 30 calendar days after the date the covered
contractor becomes aware, or has reason to suspect, that any end item,
component, part, or material contained in supplies purchased by NASA,
or purchased by a covered contractor or subcontractor for delivery to,
or on behalf of, NASA contains a counterfeit electronic part or suspect
counterfeit electronic part.
NASA
Proposed Rule Stage
153. Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Parts
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: Sec. 823 of the NASA Transition Authorization Act
of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-10; 51 U.S.C. 20113)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: NASA is proposing to amend the NFS Supplement to
implement section 823 of NASA Transition Authorization of 2017 (Pub. L.
115-10) to improve the detection and avoidance of counterfeit
electronic parts in the supply chain. This proposed rule will add a
contract clause to the NFS to require each covered contractor,
including a subcontractor, to detect and avoid the inclusion of any
counterfeit parts in electronic parts or products that contain
electronic parts and to take corrective actions necessary to remedy or
inclusion.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule....................... 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Geoffrey Sage, Office of Procurement, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC
20546, Phone: 202 358-2420, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 2700-AE38
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. These
regulations include records management, information services, and
information security. 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, controlled unclassified
information (CUI), and declassification programs; through the Office of
Government Information Services, NARA issues Governmentwide regulations
concerning Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute resolution
services and FOIA ombudsman functions; and through the Office of the
Federal Register, NARA issues regulations concerning publishing Federal
documents in the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, and
other publications.
NARA regulations directed to the public primarily address access to
and use of our historically valuable holdings, including archives,
donated historical 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 to update our
electronic records management regulation to account for changes to 44
U.S.C. 3302 which require NARA to issue standards for digital
reproductions of records with
[[Page 57959]]
an eye toward allowing agencies to then dispose of the original source
records. Agencies have begun major digitization projects and will be
doing more in the future. Under the statutory provisions in 44. U.S.C.
3302, agencies may not dispose of original source records due to having
digitized them (prior to the disposal authority date established in a
records schedule) unless they have digitized the records according to
standards established by NARA. NARA is initiating two rulemaking
actions to establish the necessary digitization standards: One rule for
temporary records (records of short-term, temporary value that are not
appropriate for preservation in the National Archives of the United
States), and another rule for permanent records (permanently valuable
and appropriate for preservation in the National Archives of the United
States).
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 dispute resolution
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
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Fall 2018 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.
In relation to Executive Order 13771, many of OPM's agenda items
are either exempt under section 4(b) of the order, or deregulatory. OPM
published the following deregulatory item in fiscal year 2018.
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Flexibilities--
This final rule added additional flexibility to the Federal Employees
Health Benefits (FEHB) Program so that all carriers will be able to
offer three plan options, one of which may be a High Deductible plan
option. Employee Organization and Comprehensive Medical plans already
have this flexibility. In the past not all carriers could offer more
than two options. This change will level the playing field in terms of
options offered to Federal employees, annuitants, and their eligible
family members. This action was necessary to promote a competitive
environment where carriers have an incentive to offer higher quality
benefits at affordable prices and broader provider networks. This
regulation fully aligns with the Administration's goal of promoting
affordable health plan choices.
The agenda includes one rule that promotes open government and uses
disclosure as a regulatory tool.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations--This
proposed rule seeks to remove obsolete sections of OPM's FOIA
regulations and incorporate all FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA
Improvement Act of 2016.
OPM also has a number of regulatory items that focus on
Administration priorities and Executive Orders. These include:
Administrative Law Judges--The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing interim regulations governing the
appointment and employment of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). This
rule will implement changes to the appointment and employment of ALJs
as required by Executive Order 13843.
Direct-Hire Authority for Agency Chief Information
Officers--This proposed rule revises OPM direct-hire authority (DHA)
regulations for the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 13833
titled, ``Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information
Officers,'' which requires OPM to issue proposed regulations necessary
to grant DHA for information technology (IT) positions under certain
conditions.
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 2018 agenda follows.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexys Stanley, (202) 606-1183 or
[email protected].
OPM
Proposed Rule Stage
154. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552
CFR Citation: 5 CFR 294.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to
amend its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations. The Freedom of
Information Act was enacted in 1966. This revision is required to
incorporate all of the
[[Page 57960]]
subsequent FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA Improvement Act of
2016.
Statement of Need: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
proposes to amend the OPM FOIA regulations. The Freedom of Information
Act was enacted in 1966. This revision is required to incorporate all
of the subsequent FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA Improvement
Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552, OPM and
every federal agency shall make available to the public, information as
follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the
Federal Register for the guidance of the public:
(A) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the
established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a
uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the
public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain
decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its
functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and
requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the
places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope
and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as
authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations
of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/24/08 73 FR 43153
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/22/08 .......................
Second NPRM......................... 03/00/19 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Tiffany Ford, FOIA Officer, Office of Personnel
Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone: 202 606-
9175, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3206-AK53
OPM
155. Direct-Hire Authority for Agency Chief Information
Officers
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3)
CFR Citation: 5 CFR part 337.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing
a proposed regulation to revise its direct-hire authority (DHA)
regulations for the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 13833
titled, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information
Officers, which requires OPM to issue proposed regulations necessary to
grant DHA for information technology (IT) positions under certain
conditions. This will enhance the Government's ability to recruit
needed IT professionals and it allows Agencies to make the initial
determination whether they have a severe-shortage of candidates or
critical hiring need.
Statement of Need: The U.S. Office of Personnel is revising the
Direct-Hire Authority (DHA) regulation in Part 337 to implement the
provisions of Executive Order 13833. The proposed regulation will allow
certain agencies to determine whether a severe shortage of candidates
(or, with respect to the Department of Veterans Affairs, that there
exists a severe shortage of highly qualified candidates) or a critical
hiring need exists for IT positions for purposes of establishing DHA.
Summary of Legal Basis: On May 15, 2018, the President signed E.O.
13833, titled, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information
Officers (83 FR 23345). The E.O. is aimed at modernizing the Federal
Government's information technology infrastructure and improving the
delivery of digital services and the management, acquisition, and
oversight of Federal IT. Section 9 of the E.O. directs OPM to propose
regulations pursuant to which OPM may delegate to the heads of certain
agencies (other than the Secretary of Defense) authority to determine,
under regulations prescribed by OPM, whether a severe shortage of
candidates (or, for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a
severe shortage of highly qualified candidates) or a critical hiring
need exists for positions in the Information Technology Management (IT)
Series, general schedule (GS)-2210 or equivalent, for purposes of an
entitlement to a direct hire authority (DHA). The agencies covered by
the E.O. are those listed in 31 U.S.C. 901(b), or independent
regulatory agencies defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Darlene Phelps, Employee Services, Office of
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone:
202 606-0203, Fax: 202 606-4430, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3206-AN65
OPM
Final Rule Stage
156. Administrative Law Judges
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301; 5 U.S.C. 3302; E.O. 13843
CFR Citation: 5 CFR 212; 5 CFR 213; 5 CFR 300; 5 CFR 302; 5 CFR
930.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing
interim regulations governing the appointment and employment of
Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). This rule will implement changes to
the appointment and employment of ALJs as required by Executive Order
13843.
Statement of Need: The purpose of the interim rule is to implement
changes to the appointment and employment ALJs, which places new
appointments to ALJ positions in the excepted service and keeps
incumbent ALJs hired on or before July 10, 2018 in the competitive
service. The interim rule will revise OPM regulations on the
appointment and employment of ALJs accordingly.
Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 13843, signed on July 10,
2018, directs ALJ positions appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105 be in the
excepted service under Schedule E. Individuals appointed to ALJ
positions prior to July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive service as
long as they remain in their current positions.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
[[Page 57961]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Katika Floyd, Employee Services, Office of
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone:
202 606-9531, Fax: 202 606-2329, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3206-AN72
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 private-sector
defined benefit plans. PBGC is currently responsible for the benefits
of about 1.5 million people in failed 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 insolvent and thus unable to pay benefits at
the guaranteed level. The guarantee is structured differently from, and
is generally significantly lower than, the single-employer guarantee.
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, PBGC had a deficit of $10.9
billion in its single-employer insurance program and $65 billion in its
multiemployer insurance program. PBGC's projections show that the
financial position of the single-employer program is likely to continue
to improve, but the multiemployer program is in dire financial
condition and likely to run out of funds by the end of fiscal year
2025. If that happens, PBGC will not have the money to pay benefits at
the current guarantee levels to participants in insolvent plans.
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:
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.
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 has proposed 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).
A couple of proposed rulemakings would update PBGC's regulations
and policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains
current. 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
[[Page 57962]]
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. For example, the ``Terminated and
Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors'' proposal
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 created a new page on its website that highlights when
there are opportunities to comment on proposed rules, information
collections, and other Federal Register notices. PBGC's current efforts
to reduce regulatory burden in the projects discussed above are in
substantial part a response to public comments. Last year PBGC asked
for feedback on its regulatory planning and review of existing
regulations by way of a Request for Information (RFI). A number of
individuals and organizations responded, and PBGC considered the
comments, some of which are reflected in this Fall agenda. PBGC
encourages comments on an on-going basis as we continue to look for
ways to further improve PBGC's regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
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 rural areas, 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 businesses 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
established 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 with the
Office of Management and Budget to fully integrate the Executive Orders
and to implement OMB guidance into SBA's 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). The Agency
continues to evaluate the comments received and will amend its
regulations as appropriate. 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 on steps SBA
and other agencies can take to reduce or eliminate those burdens. For
more information on these roundtables, please visit https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-reform.
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 four
strategic goals: (1) Support small business revenue and job growth; (2)
build healthy entrepreneurial ecosystems and create business friendly
environments; (3) restore small businesses and communities after
disasters; and (4) strengthen SBA's ability to serve 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;
Helping small business exporters succeed in global
markets;
Ensuring federal contracting and innovation goals are met
or exceeded;
Empowering veterans and military families who want to
start or grow their business;
Delivering entrepreneurial counseling and training
services in collaboration with resource partners; and
Enhancing program oversight and risk management, and
improving recovery of taxpayer assets.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and
plan
[[Page 57963]]
are intended to facilitate achievement of these strategic goals and
objectives and further the objectives of E.O. 13771. Over the next
twelve months, SBA's highest priorities will be to implement the
following three regulations.
(1) E.O. 13771 Designation--Deregulatory Action: Small Business HUBZone
Program; Government Contracting Programs (RIN: 3245-AG38)
As part of its efforts to fulfill the objectives of E.O. 13771, SBA
has completed a comprehensive review of the regulations for the
Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. As a result
of that review, this rule proposes amendments that would eliminate
ambiguities in the regulations and reduce the regulatory burdens
imposed on HUBZone small business concerns and government agencies. The
amendments would make it easier for small business concerns to
understand and comply with the program's requirements and make the
HUBZone program a more attractive option for procuring federal
agencies.
For example, the rule proposes to eliminate the burden on HUBZone
small businesses to continually demonstrate that they meet all
eligibility requirements at the time of each HUBZone contract offer and
award. The rule would instead require only annual recertification. This
reduced burden on certified HUBZone small businesses would allow a firm
to remain eligible for future HUBZone contracts for an entire year,
without requiring it to demonstrate that it continues to meet all
HUBZone requirements. The rule also proposes to eliminate the
requirement for the concern to relocate in order to attempt to maintain
its HUBZone status when the area where the business is located or a
qualifying employee resides loses its HUBZone status.
In addition to carrying out the Administration's regulatory policy,
removal of these and similar regulatory requirements would make it
easier for firms to meet the eligibility requirements for HUBZone
contracts, and help SBA to achieve its strategic objective to simplify
access to federal contracting for small businesses.
(2) E.O. 13771 Designation--Regulatory Action: Implementation of the
Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 (RIN: 3245-
AH05)
In order to protect the safety and soundness of its business loan
programs, SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) is responsible
for monitoring performance of the various types of lenders that
participate in these loan programs, managing the programs' credit
risks, and enforcing applicable program regulations and procedures. The
recently enacted Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of
2018 increases SBA's authority to supervise lenders and enforce prudent
lending standards. This rule will propose the regulatory amendments
necessary to implement the new authorities. The amendments will clarify
or add conditions for informal and formal enforcement actions,
including supervisory letters, voluntary letters, suspensions or
revocations of lending authority. The rule will also propose to
implement the statutory provision that authorizes lenders to appeal
enforcement actions to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA recognizes the importance of maintaining a comprehensive lender
oversight and risk management system. As evidence of its commitment to
a robust credit risk management system, SBA has identified lender
oversight and risk management as one of the Agency's strategic
objectives in its FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. After SBA has
implemented the statutorily required amendments, the revised
regulations will enhance SBA's oversight capabilities, reduce risk, and
ensure the integrity of the small business loan programs.
(3) E.O. 13771 Designation--Other Action: 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 that,
once implemented, will streamline the review process and provide an
option for small businesses that reduces their certification costs. The
proposed changes would further SBA's strategic objectives to simplify
the process and increase contracting opportunities for small
businesses. The proposed reduction in certification costs would also
further the regulatory reform objectives of E.O. 13771.
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 also currently requires firms to submit
documentation to an SBA-maintained electronic document repository. SBA
regulations currently require contracting officers to check the
repository for documents submitted by every WOSB or EDWOSB contract
awardee. The rule will propose the establishment of an SBA
certification process, removal of both the self-certification option
and the requirement for contracting officers to review the repository
documents. Shifting responsibilities to SBA and streamlining the review
process 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. This outcome would help SBA to
achieve its strategic objectives to ensure Federal agencies meet or
exceed their small business contracting goals.
While it is important to implement rules that do not unnecessarily
burden small businesses, SBA also has a responsibility to ensure that
its programs are serving only those businesses that meet program
eligibility requirements. To that end, this rule will also propose
standards for increased oversight in order to ensure continuing
eligibly of certified program participants.
SBA
Proposed Rule Stage
157. Small Business Hubzone Program and Government Contracting Programs
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 657a
CFR Citation: 13 CFR 115; 13 CFR 121; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 126.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: SBA has been reviewing its processes and procedures for
implementing the HUBZone program and has determined that several of the
regulations governing the program should be amended in order to resolve
certain issues that have arisen. As a result, the proposed rule would
constitute a comprehensive revision of part 126 of SBA's regulations to
clarify current HUBZone Program regulations, and implement various new
procedures. The amendments will make it easier for participants to
comply with the program requirements and enable them to maximize the
benefits afforded by participation. In developing this proposed rule,
SBA will focus on the principles of Executive Orders 12866, 13771, and
13563 to determine whether portions of regulations should be modified,
streamlined, expanded or repealed to make the HUBZone program
[[Page 57964]]
more effective and/or less burdensome on small business concerns. At
the same time, SBA will maintain a framework that helps identify and
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
Statement of Need: The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase
economic investment and employment in Historically Underutilized
Business Zones (HUBZones).
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule makes a number of changes
necessary to clarify the HUBZone program's regulations and to make the
program easier to use for small business contractors and procuring
agencies.
Alternatives: The alternative to the proposed regulations would be
the status quo, where businesses cannot request reconsideration when
their application is denied, must be eligible at the time of offer and
time of award, and must recertify every 3 years. SBA has modeled the
revised processes based on its other contracting programs (e.g., 8(a)
request for reconsideration and annual review) and believes that these
processes have worked well for these programs and should therefore be
utilized for the HUBZone program.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Overall, this proposed rule would
reduce annual burden on HUBZone small business concerns. The proposed
implementation of a formal request for reconsideration process would
provide consistency in the processes for SBA's programs and would be
beneficial to HUBZone applicants because it would allow them to correct
deficiencies and come into compliance without waiting 90 days to
reapply for the program. This should enable additional firms to be more
quickly certified for the HUBZone program, allowing them to seek and be
awarded HUBZone contracts sooner. SBA estimates that the proposed
reconsideration process would increase the annual hourly burden on
small business concerns applying to the HUBZone program by
approximately 15 hours. The proposed requirement for HUBZone small
business concerns to recertify annually to SBA that they continue to
meet all of the HUBZone eligibility requirements, instead of requiring
them to undergo a recertification every three years, would increase the
annual hourly burden by approximately 3,800 hours. The proposed change
removing the requirement for HUBZone small business concerns to
represent or certify that they are eligible at the time of offer and
award for every HUBZone contract would reduce burden on HUBZone small
business concerns by approximately 4,200 hours. The proposed change to
allow an employee who resides in a HUBZone at the time of a HUBZone
concern's certification or recertification to continue to count as a
HUBZone employee as long as the individual remains an employee of the
firm will greatly reduce burden on firms, as they will not have to
continuously track whether their employees still reside in a HUBZone or
seek to employ new individuals if the location in which one or more
current employees reside loses its HUBZone status. We estimate that
this should reduce the hourly burden by 2,500 hours annually.
Risks: There is very little risk associated with this proposed
rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Meeting...................... 04/23/18 83 FR 17626
Public Meeting...................... 05/30/18 83 FR 24684
NPRM................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mariana Pardo, Director, Office of HUBZone, Small
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416,
Phone: 202 205-2985, Fax: 202 481-2675, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3245-AG38
SBA
158. 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, protests, 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: The proposed rule will implement the 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................................ 10/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kenneth Dodds, Director, Office of Policy, Planning
and
[[Page 57965]]
Liaison, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW,
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 619-1766, Fax: 202 481-2950, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 3245-AG75
SBA
159. Implementation of the Small Business 7(A) Lending
Oversight Reform Act of 2018
Priority: Other Significant.
E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 657t
CFR Citation: 13 CFR 120; 13 CFR 134.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 21, 2019.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
section, the Administrator shall issue regulations, after opportunity
for notice and comment.
Abstract: The Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of
2018 was enacted on June 21, 2018. The purpose of the legislation is to
strengthen the Office of Credit Risk Management within the Small
Business Administration. The statute requires the SBA Administrator to
promulgate new regulations not later than one year after enactment of
the statute. This rule will propose to implement this statute and add
clarity to informal and formal enforcement actions and appeal
provisions. Examples of informal enforcement actions may include
supervisory letters and voluntary actions/agreements. Examples of
formal enforcement actions include suspension or revocation of
delegated authority, suspension or revocation of 7(a) lending
authority, and assessment of civil monetary penalties. The statute also
provides lenders with the ability to appeal enforcement actions to the
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The rule will propose conditions for
accessing this appeal process.
Statement of Need: This action is necessary to implement the Small
Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-189)
(the Act), which was enacted on June 21, 2018. In the legislation,
Congress strengthened the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management
(OCRM). This rule will provide additional regulatory guidance for
informal and formal enforcement actions against SBA Lenders, including
the new statutory authority to impose Civil Monetary Penalties up to
$250,000. The rule will also conform the enforcement action appeals
process to the statutory requirements. Congress has specifically
required SBA to promulgate regulations implementing the legislation
within one year of enactment. This rule will increase SBA's lender
oversight capabilities, mitigate risk, and ensure the integrity of
SBA's small business loan programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: 15 U.S.C. 657t(f) requires SBA to issue
regulations, after opportunity for notice and comment, no later than
one year after enactment. SBA is also authorized to supervise and
oversee SBA Lenders under 15 U.S.C. 633(b)(3); 15 U.S.C. 634 note; 15
U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (7) and (14); and 15 U.S.C. 650.
Alternatives: The Act requires SBA to issue regulations within one
year after enactment. During the notice and comment process, SBA will
consider various alternatives as it implements the statutory
requirements while strengthening SBA lender oversight, ensuring the
integrity of the SBA loan programs, and protecting taxpayer dollars.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA is not yet certain of the
anticipated costs and benefits. SBA will be assessing the costs and
benefits as it develops the rule during the notice and comment process.
Risks: Implementation of the Act through this rulemaking will
encourage SBA Lenders to correct deficiencies, return SBA loan
portfolios to safe and sound condition, and limit risk in the SBA loan
programs. Codification of SBA's new authority to impose Civil Monetary
Penalties up to $250,000 will provide a significant financial
disincentive to imprudent and risky lending.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/18 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Susan Streich, Director of Credit Risk Management,
Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416,
Phone: 202 205-6641, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 3245-AH05
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify
uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive
agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly under the statutory
authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, Administrator of
General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, known as the FAR Council. Overall statutory authority
is found at chapters 11 and 13 of title 41 of the United States Code.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Activities
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''
(February 24, 2017), required the FAR Council to oversee the
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. The
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,
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (September 30, 1993). In response to
Executive Order 13777, the FAR Council reviewed and evaluated existing
policies and regulations and identified regulations that could be
repealed, replaced, or modified to reduce the regulatory burden. In
relation to Executive Order 13771, the FAR Council conducts analysis of
the regulatory cost or savings impact for agenda items.
During Fiscal Year 2018, the FAR Council completed two (2)
deregulatory actions.
The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2015-039) on May
1, 2018 to increase the dollar threshold for the audit of prime
contract settlement proposals and subcontract settlements submitted in
the event of contract termination, from $100,000 to $750,000. The
increased threshold reduces the number of terminated contracts that
require settlement audits, and enables contracting officers to more
quickly deobligate the excess funds from terminated contracts under the
threshold. Contractors will save costs associated with the preparation
for termination settlement audits and will have improved cash flow from
faster final settlement under the threshold.
The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2017-007) on May
1, 2018 to raise the threshold for task- and delivery-order protests
for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard from $10 million to $25 million,
except for a protest on the grounds that the order increases the scope,
period, or maximum value of the contract. The increased threshold will
result in savings for the agencies involved in processing the protests
and will benefit contractors who win awards and will no longer need to
expend
[[Page 57966]]
resources defending challenges to those awards.
The Fiscal Year 2019 Unified Agenda consists of forty-eight (48)
agenda items of which the following seven (7) have been identified as
deregulatory.
FAR Case 2016-011, Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting
FAR Case 2017-009, Special Emergency Procurement Authority
FAR Case 2017-010, Evaluation Factors for Multiple-Award
Contracts
FAR Case 2018-004, Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified
Acquisition Thresholds
FAR Case 2018-013, Exemption of Commercial and COTS Item
Contracts from Certain Laws and Regulations
FAR Case 2018-015, Governmentwide and Other Interagency
Contracts
FAR Case 2018-019, Review of Commercial Contract Clause
Requirements and Flowdown
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The FAR Council is required to amend the Federal Acquisition
Regulation to implement statutory and policy initiatives. The FAR
Council prioritization is focused on initiatives that:
Streamline regulations and reduce burden, especially for
commercial and commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items;
Promote disclosure and open government
Support national security efforts, especially safeguarding
Federal Government information technology systems; and
Improve small business opportunities with the Federal
Government.
Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations and Reduce Burdens
FAR Case 2018-004, Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified
Acquisition Thresholds, will increase the micro-purchase threshold
(MPT) to $10,000; increase the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)
to $250,000; and make additional changes related to the thresholds. The
increase in thresholds will allow the use of more streamlined
procedures which reduces the time and effort needed to make an award.
Some contractors will benefit from reduced contract compliance
requirements.
FAR Case 2018-013, Exemption of Commercial and COTS Item Contracts
from Certain Laws and Regulations, will implement revisions to the FAR
to exempt commercial and COTS items from laws identified by the FAR
Council or Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. This reduction
will allow contractors to use existing commercial practices, reducing
compliance costs from requirements unique to the Government.
FAR Case 2018-014, Increasing Task-order Level Competition, will
provide an exception to the requirement to consider price as an
evaluation factor, for the award of services to be acquired on an
hourly rate basis under certain indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity
contracts and Federal Supply Schedule contracts. Meaningful evaluation
of cost and price takes place later, when task or delivery order
proposals are evaluated. The exception will allow procurement officials
to focus on establishing and evaluating non-price factors at the
earlier contract award level, resulting in more meaningful distinctions
among offerors.
Rulemakings That Promote Disclosure and Open Government
FAR Case 2017-004, Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor
Feedback, will address soliciting contractor feedback on how well
agencies are doing in awarding and administering contracts. This will
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency acquisition
activities.
FAR Case 2016-005, Effective Communication between Government and
Industry, encourages agency acquisition personnel to talk to industry.
Rulemakings That Support National Security
FAR Case 2018-017, Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and
Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, will prohibit the procurement
of covered equipment and services from Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE
Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Technology
Company or Dahua Technology Company and any subsidiaries or affiliates.
The prohibition is implemented to protect Government information
systems from threats.
FAR Case 2018-010, Use of Product and Services of Kaspersky Lab,
prohibits any department, agency, organization or other element of the
Federal Government from using hardware, software or services developed
by Kaspersky Lab or any entity in which Kaspersky Lab has a majority
ownership. The prohibition is implemented to protect Government
information systems from threats.
FAR Case 2017-018, Violation of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements
with the United States, prohibits, with some exceptions, the heads of
executive agencies from entering into, renewing or extending a contract
for the procurement of products or services from any persons involved
in activities that violate arms control treaties or agreements with the
United States. The prohibition reduces potential threats to the
security of the United States and our allies.
Rulemakings of Interest to Small Business
FAR Case 2016-011, Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting, will
implement SBA's regulatory clarifications concerning the
nonmanufacturer rule, and how much a small business may subcontract to
a large business. These were inconsistent across small business
programs, such as whether a HUBZone small business could subcontract to
other HUBZone small businesses. This rule revises and standardizes
these requirements from multiple FAR clauses to two.
FAR Case 2018-003, Credit for Lower-Tier Small Business
Subcontracting will allow large businesses to receive small business
subcontracting credit for subcontracts that their subcontractors award
to small businesses.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
William F. Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-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:
[[Page 57967]]
A. Update the medical criteria used to evaluate disability
applications to keep pace with medicine, science, technology, and
workforce changes;
B. Reduce the hearings backlog and improve the disability appeals
process;
C. Update SSA disability evaluation criteria and the frequency of
continuing disability reviews;
D. Combat Social Security fraud, impose civil monetary penalties
for specific violations of the Social Security Act, and clarify that
electronic and internet communications are included in the prohibitions
against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems; and
E. 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 (E.O.) 13771. In
compliance with the Administration's Regulatory Reform efforts, as
prescribed by E.O. 13771 and E.O. 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 an item to remove outdated regulatory
sections from the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we remain
committed to innovate in ways that ease burden on the public even
outside the realm of formal deregulation, such as through developing
online reporting and application tools.
II. Regulations in the Proposed Rule Stage
Our regulations will:
Selectively update the medical listings for evaluating
digestive, cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 0960-AG65);
Increase the number of disability hearings held via video
teleconference, where appropriate, to help make the hearings process
more efficient (RIN 0960-AI09);
Clarify that administrative appeals judges from our
Appeals Council may hold hearings and issue decisions (RIN 0960-AI25);
Remove the education category of ``inability to
communicate in English'' to help us more accurately assess the
vocational impact of education in the disability determination process
(0960-AH86);
Add a new category to the existing medical diary
categories that we use to schedule continuing disability reviews and
revise the criteria we follow to place a case in each of the categories
(0960-AI27);
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);
Clarify that electronic and internet communications are
included in the prohibitions against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and
emblems (0960-AI04);